It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simple question re: homosexuality

page: 9
41
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightOrange
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Family research Council: Denied. Extreme Bias; not even wasting my time. Don't insult me.
.


[color=6699FF]given your extreme hostility and DISALLOWING re "Extreme Bias,"

I assume that as a testimony to your extreme integrity regarding such "Extreme Bias" . . .


[color=CC9966]that you'll demonstrate your consistency and integrity by stopping posting hereon immediately.

It's difficult to recall someone MORE

EXTREMELY BIASED on a topic . . . than you on this one . . . in all my years on ATS.

I don't really see any discussion from you or your side of the honest responses and issues related to the OP's question. Evidently the OP was a baiting trollish post to begin with???

Are you serious about not believing that on average, homosexual men live significantly fewer years than heterosexual men [20 years less, IIRC]?

Do you seriously believe that the parade of sexual partners in and out of the lives of homosexual parents would have NO negative effect on their children's concepts of WORTH, on the merit of faithfulness, loyalty, intimacy, durability, trustworthiness of close RELATIONSHIPS?

Do you seriously believe that learning from such behaviors that even the closest relationships cannot be trusted to be dependable over the long term . . . results in NO negative consequences in the lives of the children?

Do you seriously believe that the temporary nature of the vast bulk of homosexual partnerships--married or not--has NO negative consequences for the children desperately needing father figures to be stable in their lives; dependable in their lives--at least for the first 6-8 years and actually for the first 18 years of their life?

IF you believe any of that and still pretend to be interested in an HONESTLY REASONABLE DIALOGUE about the issues of the OP . . . then I'd have to shake my head in incredulous dismay between loud guffaws.


Ahhhh well . . . I may well continue to post some of the better links I come across. Folks can make up their own minds.
.
.

edit on 28/5/2013 by BO XIAN because: fix tags

edit on 28/5/2013 by BO XIAN because: addition




posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


This is really an ignorant argument.

You don't have to be married to adopt a kid.


As of 2010, every state in the U.S. allows unmarried men and women to adopt. Single adults are also allowed to adopt children from many countries around the world. While you do not have to be married to adopt a child, the rules that govern both domestic and international adoptions can be different for single men and women than for married couples.


www.livestrong.com...

So what difference does gay marriage make? None mate, none at all.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
People are so scared about gay marriage because it's different, and certainly Christians celebrate marriage between a man and a woman as being sacrosanct.

Christians and the Far Right have been brainwashed by their Churches and the right wing media into fearing anything that's not the same as them, and gays and religious minorities such as Muslims are top of the list.

Eventually, if the TEA Party continues to move further to the right, they'll end up as the National Front party. If you're not a Straight, White, Christian American, you won't be welcome in the USA.


If Christians fear anything that's not the same as them, then why is it that we are constantly getting accused of cramming God and Jesus down other people's throats? If you're afraid of anything and anyone that's not the same as you, wouldn't you run away from it instead of trying to cram your beliefs down their throats?

Anyway, OP, there is nothing scary about gay people wanting to get married. God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. (2 Timothy 1:7)

Christians are supposed to warn people in a loving, meek, humble way. Sadly, that is not the case the majority of the time. If only they would read their Bibles, they would know this. For instance:

Proverbs 15:1-2 (KJV)
15 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
2 The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.

They are not our rules. They are God's rules. Christians are supposed to let the truth be known to as many people as possible. People hate His rules because they reject Him. If they didn't reject Him, they would not hate His rules. Like we have heard a million times before, He has given us all freewill. However, if one rejects His rules and His Son, they reject Him. If they reject Him, they do not love Him.

If they do not love Him, why would they want to spend eternity with Him? If they go against Him and reject Him, then having to live with Him forever and ever would not be their idea of a good time.

Those who reject the God and His Son will spend eternity separated from Them. Not in a burning inferno where they experience pain non-stop. They will simply be asleep for eternity, not knowing anything.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by LightOrange
 

Dear LightOrange,

Part 2. (As another poster has pointed out, I do tend to get wordy, sorry.)

It's funny, you just contradicted an earlier point of yours... you say people who own businesses should be allowed to discriminate, but then you say people who own businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. It seems like the only people who are allowed to discriminate, in your opinion, are those with "traditional marriage values", and those without them are not allowed to discriminate against those with them.
Yes, I agree that the company has the right to dismiss people for nearly any reason. (Although there are protected groups whose members are difficult to get rid of, even for cause.) But if we allow the firing of people opposed to homosexual marriage, why should we try to oppose firing, or refusing to give service to people supporting gay marriage?


"I do not understand this, and I won't have my children understanding it either!"
Of course that's not my position, but do you believe that a parent has absolutely no say over what their children are taught? "Mommy, I learned in school today that Obama is a Marxist Muslim, determined to destroy the country, and become the ruler of the world. He hates us." (Probably Texas
) Have you no right to prevent that kind of teaching?


First of all, you've failed to outline any negative repurcussions.
I thought I had, and there are others.


If gay couples can get married, they get financial benefits, which will increase their financial stability and allow them to possibly be able to adopt children. Wasn't your initial argument "think about the children"?
You would get the same result, from the adoption point of view, if the government paid all adoption fees for straight couples. Increasing government benefits to anyone increases their financial condition, but that's an argument for welfare, not same-sex marriage.

I hope I've been able to clarify things, and would welcome further discussion.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   
The RC church in particular would make a wise business move by embracing the pink dollar for marriages...the payout on pedo cases is phenomenal...

Å99



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN

. . .
• Same-sex relationships are much more unstable and short-lived than heterosexual relationships.

• Even some researchers in favour of gay adoption admit that children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to be homosexual.

• Despite repeated assertions to the contrary, studies indicate significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual parenting outcomes for children. One of the largest pro-gay studies found that children raised by homosexual couples had the worst outcomes in terms of education and social adjustment. Children raised by cohabiting couples were better, but those raised by married couples had the best outcomes.

• Gender confusion seems to be rife with daughters of lesbian mothers.

• Pro-gay studies commonly ditch the most basic research methods:
– They fail to test any hypothesis or use a proper control group.
– Sample sizes are so small that no deductions can be made.
– One study which was headlined as “Gay men make better fathers” did not even have any children in the study but merely asked opinions.

Cohabiting couples have deliberately chosen to live in a relationship that gives them the complete freedom to leave that relationship. But children need to be raised within a stable, secure environment.
.
. . .




Right. And you cut out the heading how convenient:



At the time, The Christian Institute set out the evidence for restricting adoption to married couples and single individuals.
• Same-sex relationships are much more unstable and short-lived than heterosexual relationships.

• Even some researchers in favour of gay adoption admit that children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to be homosexual.

• Despite repeated assertions to the contrary, studies indicate significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual parenting outcomes for children. One of the largest pro-gay studies found that children raised by homosexual couples had the worst outcomes in terms of education and social adjustment. Children raised by cohabiting couples were better, but those raised by married couples had the best outcomes.



Honestly, you can just stop now. I'm done sifting through this thripe trying to find any shred of legitimacy when thre's obviously none to be had. This is all just garbage and you're censoring out the bias at will to try and push a point that never existed. Better luck next time. Maybe you'll snag someone who is a little elss obseervant and they might fall for it.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 

Dear Tw0Sides,

I think you've fallen a little below your otherwise high standards.

You and your m8 Charles 1952 have no Qualms expressing your Strong belief in God and Religion.

Yet you 2 are the Most Vocal at preaching Hatred and Discrimination.

My Exposure to Religion was that it Taught Acceptance and Tolerance.
I am surprised that you think I preach hatred, especially that you think I'm the most vocal. I don't think there is any evidence for that. (And, apparently, you haven't visited threads discussing Israel. Now, there's hatred.)

I don't know of any religion, or even any philosophy, which teaches acceptance of error. Certainly, we can't accept everything. The idea of gay marriage is that the definition of traditional marriage can not be accepted or tolerated.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jeramie
 


Maybe not fear, but it is born out of ignorance, especially of your own religion.

Most "Christians" just act out of the stereotype they adopt. They think if something is accepted by a lot of people, what was it 250 million, then it must be right. They don't even think of questioning anything.

Nothing but a lazy mind set. Willing to be spoon fed, and easy to socially condition to think a certain way. The sort of people who willingly accept tyranny, because they don't recognise what it is.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 

Dear Tw0Sides,

I think you've fallen a little below your otherwise high standards.

You and your m8 Charles 1952 have no Qualms expressing your Strong belief in God and Religion.

Yet you 2 are the Most Vocal at preaching Hatred and Discrimination.

My Exposure to Religion was that it Taught Acceptance and Tolerance.
I am surprised that you think I preach hatred, especially that you think I'm the most vocal. I don't think there is any evidence for that. (And, apparently, you haven't visited threads discussing Israel. Now, there's hatred.)

I don't know of any religion, or even any philosophy, which teaches acceptance of error. Certainly, we can't accept everything. The idea of gay marriage is that the definition of traditional marriage can not be accepted or tolerated.

With respect,
Charles1952



With the greatest respect Charles1952...that 'strategy' seems not to have been employed for abuse...priorities?

Å99
edit on 28-5-2013 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Research links continued:

= = = =

www.catholiceducation.org...

.

Gay Marriage: Who’s Minding the Children?
SUSAN BRINKMANN
.




According to Jeffrey Satinover, M. D., a psychiatrist and member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, there is no more important reason to prohibit same-sex marriage than the effects it would have on children. . . . He says it because it's sound science.
.

"In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental ... at every phase of the life cycle ... social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. ... The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers."

. . .
Some years back, Satinover served as an expert witness . . . . "The state of Florida wanted me to argue that the reason the ban should be upheld was because homosexuals made bad parents and I refused to do that. I said in my testimony, if two homosexuals ... to adopt a child, I would have no objection ... if one of them was a man and one of them was a woman."

What mattered more was that the man and woman, homosexual or not, were willing to act contrary to their own desires in making the sacrifice to provide a stable home for the child. . . . It has nothing to do with homosexuality, per se, . . . and are so selfish and ignorant of what children need, that by their very insistence they prove themselves unfit to be parents."

. . .



= = = =

An incidental article along the way that's interesting:

.

catholiceducation.org...
.

Known causes of same-sex attraction
SUSAN BRINKMANN
If genes are not the cause of same-sex attraction in some people, what is?
.

= = = = =

.

catholiceducation.org...

.
Health risks of the homosexual lifestyle
SUSAN BRINKMANN
"As a nurse, I watched 100 of my friends and acquaintances die of AIDS and AIDS related illnesses. After that, I stopped counting."




. . .

Physical Health Risks
.

In addition to AIDS, there is a long list of maladies attendant upon the homosexually active population. Of particular concern is anal cancer. According to J. R. Daling et.al, "Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90, the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse.
.

Other maladies include chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus (HPV) or genital warts, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B & C and syphilis.
.


Emotional/Mental Health Risks
.

Two extensive studies published in the October 1999 issue of American Medical Association Archives of General Psychiatry confirmed the existence of a strong link between homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems.
.

Youth who identify themselves as homosexual, lesbian and bisexual are four times more likely than their peers to suffer from major depression; three times more likely to suffer anxiety disorders, four times more likely to suffer conduct disorders, six times more likely to suffer from multiple disorders and more than six times more likely to have attempted suicide.
.

Many homosexual activists point their finger at homophobia as the cause of these disorders, but the most extensive studies have been done in the Netherlands and New Zealand where homosexuality is widely accepted.
.

In an interview with Zenit News, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a child and adult psychiatrist in practice for more than 27 years, said, "Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interviews, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence."
.

Physical Abuse
.
A recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health has shown that 39 percent of males with same-sex attraction have been abused by other homosexual men.

A study by Susan Turrell entitled "A descriptive analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample," and published in the Journal of Family Violence (vol 13, pp 281-293), found that relationship violence was a significant problem for homosexuals. Forty-four percent of gay men reported having experienced violence in their relationship; 13 percent reported sexual violence and 83 percent reported emotional abuse.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by markosity1973
 

Dear markosity1973,

Thanks for commenting, you raise a particularly powerful point.

My discussion was based on the idea of gay marriage, and not how people are treated in their daily life. Comparing black-white marriage bans to same-sex marriage is a faulty analogy. If a black man marries a white woman, marriage isn't changed; it is still between one man and one woman.

Bans on inter-racial marriage were damaging to the idea of marriage, they kept men and women apart because of skin color. While gay marriage actually redefines marriage because it eliminates the very presence of a man and woman union.

Government already treats people differently because of the group they are a part of, non-citizens, underage, felons, those over 65, etc. It's common, and not necessarily reprehensible, to treat diferently situated people differently.

With respect,
Charles1952


Firstly, thankyou for your thoughtful and respectful reply. I can see that you are a man of intelligence.


Secondly, I would argue that adding same sex union to the definition of marriage, would not negate opposite sex marriage at all. It would change the definition by making what was a fixed view a pluralistic one.

Being a gay person from a very strict Catholic family of 5 children, I understand only too well both religious concerns and those over tradition, You would not know the struggle I had in my personal life coming to terms with my own sexuality. BUT... this thread and issue is not about me, it is about all gay people.

I do not see how my brothers and my sister would suddenly lose value on their marriages if I were allowed the same right. I do not see how my neighbour across the street becomes violated because I have the same legal rights as he does now. I do not see how any of my employees would be directly affected by it. They will all still have a job and get paid the same.

The only thing I see is heterosexual male pride dented, because he loses the right to call marriage 'his' exclusively.

Secondly, all of those groups you have mentioned have either broken the law, or have avenues to gain rights through the citizenship process and pensioners gain benefits, not lose them.

What can a gay person do? They are not breaking the law. They cannot gain access to the secular legal rights that marriage offers and they most certainly do not gain special extra rights for being gay as pensioners do. That last point in fact was why a large number of laws outlawing homosexuality were repealed. One of the unexpected and admittedly grossly unfair benefits of those laws meant that 2 gay men could live together and receive government benefits i.e unemployment, sickness etc as if they were single, because the law did not recognise their relationship in any form.

The law quite rightly took away those inequalities, but it is very reluctant to give any sort of equality back.
edit on 28-5-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by LightOrange
 

Dear LightOrange,

We seem to be having severe trouble understanding each other.

Your argument was that it's for the production of children, but two people over 65 can legally marry; they absolutely cannot produce children. Your reasoning is baseless.
But, that's not my argument. Any society needs children to continue, children are best raised in heterosexual, long-term marriages, therefore, for the benefit of Society's children, marriage should be heterosexual.

I know you'll be tempted to deny my second premise, but why bother throwing studies back and forth? It's a plausible argument, and doesn't require that every couple have children.


There's a reason that America is the only developed country that doesn't allow gay marriage: bipartisan brainwashing. It's amazing how Americans are still fighting over this obvious non-issue in 2013. The "deep south" really needs to grow up and shut off Faux News. It's toxic.
I'd like to respond to this argument, but it doesn't seem to be one. Unless I'm missing something, it's primarily name calling.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Research etc links continued

= = =

www.frc.org...
.
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
.




Are homosexual households, as the article suggests, simply another variant of human relationships that should be considered, along with marriage, as "part of mainstream American society"?
.
On the contrary, the evidence indicates that "committed" homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:

relationship duration

monogamy vs. promiscuity

relationship commitment

number of children being raised

health risks

rates of intimate partner violence
.

Finally, this paper will present evidence from gay activists themselves indicating that behind the push for gay marriage lies a political agenda to radically change the institution of marriage itself.
.
RELATIONSHIP DURATION
.
Gay activists often point to high divorce rates and claim that married couples fare little better than homosexuals with regard to the duration of their relationships. The research, however, indicates that male homosexual relationships last only a fraction of the length of most marriages.
. . .




= = =

www.childwelfare.gov...

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information
National Adoption Information Clearinghouse

Gateways to Information: Protecting Children and Strengthening Families
Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents: Resources for Professionals and Parents



. . .

Research studies, often conducted by individuals or organizations with a vested interest in the outcome, are contradictory. Studies linked to conservative political and religious groups show negative effects on children of gay and lesbian parents; while, studies which support homosexual parenting are said to reflect the bias of those who are themselves gay or who support gay rights. Clearly, what are needed are definitive studies that would follow larger numbers of children over a long period of time. That research, when completed, will provide more definitive information for the debate.
.

In the meantime, it is critical to address the issues and concerns so that social workers can examine their own personal biases to make informed decisions and gay and lesbian adoptive families can receive the support they need to thrive.
. . .


.

= = =

www.slate.com...

The Gay Science
What do we know about the effects of same-sex parenting?
.



. . .


Whenever advocates shoot down findings that work in their favor, the result carries extra credibility. In this case it helps, too, that the professor stepping forth to do so, Judith Stacey, is a well-known sociologist whose strident advocacy of "alternative" families has made her a nemesis of traditionalists. Stacey's stringent assessment of 21 of the better studies on gay child-rearing, in an article titled "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" cut through the ideological static that such a charged area of research almost inevitably generates. (Co-authored with Timothy J. Biblarz, it appeared in the American Sociological Review in 2001.)
.
Stacey readily concurred with the traditionalist critics' charge that scholarship in the still-fledgling field of gay parenting has been conducted almost entirely by researchers sympathetic to gay concerns. This is precisely why she set out to subject the studies to a "heightened degree of critical scrutiny." She focused in on the difficulties that have stymied good, systematic work . . .
. . .
.
. . . On the hot topic of sexual orientation, the only long-term study of lesbian-headed families reports 64 percent of the young adult children saying they've considered same-sex relationships (compared to 17 percent with heterosexual parents)—although there is no statistical difference between the number in both groups who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. *
.


to be continued



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by LightOrange
 

Dear LightOrange,

Part 2. (As another poster has pointed out, I do tend to get wordy, sorry.)

It's funny, you just contradicted an earlier point of yours... you say people who own businesses should be allowed to discriminate, but then you say people who own businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. It seems like the only people who are allowed to discriminate, in your opinion, are those with "traditional marriage values", and those without them are not allowed to discriminate against those with them.
Yes, I agree that the company has the right to dismiss people for nearly any reason. (Although there are protected groups whose members are difficult to get rid of, even for cause.) But if we allow the firing of people opposed to homosexual marriage, why should we try to oppose firing, or refusing to give service to people supporting gay marriage?


You can go ahead and try -- see how long you remain in business. My guess is not very long. That will absolutely hit twitter and explode in your face very quickly. And that repercussion is strictly social and well warranted as far as most are concerned I'm sure. We're talking bigotry guised by the term "values" versus acceptance guised by the term "tolerance". People are just getting more educated, that's really all there is to it. The mor educated a society becomes, the more the people veer away from religion and towards practicality. You can't honestly try to say that, if you took religion completely out of the equation, people would be opposed to gay marriage? The opposition to it is strictly irrational once you remove religion. This is a secular society, so we always have to remove religion when we are making laws.



"I do not understand this, and I won't have my children understanding it either!"
Of course that's not my position, but do you believe that a parent has absolutely no say over what their children are taught? "Mommy, I learned in school today that Obama is a Marxist Muslim, determined to destroy the country, and become the ruler of the world. He hates us." (Probably Texas
) Have you no right to prevent that kind of teaching?


If those were factual statements I would have absolutely no problem with them being taught to my children. What is not factual about what children are being taught in regards to homosexuality? I'm more concerned about the lack of education towards it. It's when we get the uber zealots who do think their parental opinion is above society that we get disgraces to humanity who get involved in incidences like the Matthew Shepard case. Also, I'd much prefer homosexuals be well informed of the added risks when dealing with the rectum as a sexual organ, as it is far for susceptable to disease and physical complications that youths should be aware of. There is no logic in sheltering them from this reality based on "conservative values". It's damaging.



You would get the same result, from the adoption point of view, if the government paid all adoption fees for straight couples. Increasing government benefits to anyone increases their financial condition, but that's an argument for welfare, not same-sex marriage.


But gay people actually adopt, whereas most heterosexuals spawn their own. Welfare is not what I'm talking about, however. I'm not talking just about subtle tax breaks afforded only to married couples, I'm talking about money saved on insurance rates, beneficiary statuses, lower interest rates on lines of credit, etc..
edit on 28-5-2013 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Research links cont:

= =

faculty.spokanefalls.edu...

CHILDREN OF LESBIAN AND GAY PARENTS: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

Bridget Fitzgerald.

This looks like one of the better such reviews. However, I'm even more tired than when I began this and I am not up to the tedious task of excerpting the long and densely packed review. I encourage folks to look at it.

= = =

Night night. Gotta hit the shower and bed.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Except marriage becomes much more than a religious ceremony when it grants tax benefits and the like.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
But, that's not my argument. Any society needs children to continue, children are best raised in heterosexual, long-term marriages, therefore, for the benefit of Society's children, marriage should be heterosexual.


Every single article that has been pushed at me in this thread, and that has been about 30 now, have all been from Christian sites with an obvious anti-homosexual agenda, riddled with anti-abortion topics and whatnot on the sidebar. The one article I managed to get that wasn't was an essay, and when I reveiwed the sources every single one of them went against what the essay was concluding, and many of the excerpts didn't even exist in the original text. Totally bogus. If you have no evidence to bear that same sex marriage is less adequate for raising children than heterosexual marriage than you honestly have no point. I don't know how you could possibly think otherwise. That is a very bold statement and bold statements demand bold evidence. If you can't provide bold evidence for your motion of denying someone equal rights, you have no grounds to deny them human rights. It almost sickens me to even think that we have this conversation, as if it's our place to decide such things in other peoples' lives. So incredibly megalomaniacal is makes my stomach churn.

But you're also ignoring what I just said, which was completely legitimate. If marriage is only here to produce children, then why can 65 year olds get married? Why can sterile people get married? Why can people who don't procreate get married? It's really a gigantic hole in your argument. See, because people who arent producing children are allowed to get married.... unless they're gay. But many of these gay people will take children oout of the adoption agencies whereas many of these other childless heterosexuals will not. So, by your own logic, gay people are still more eligible for marriage than many heterosexual couples who are getting married.


I know you'll be tempted to deny my second premise, but why bother throwing studies back and forth? It's a plausible argument, and doesn't require that every couple have children.


It absolutely does, that's incorrect. If you say that marriage is an institution for raising children and that's why gay people cannot be married, and many gay people will have children while many heterosexuals will not, your point is rendered completely invalid.



There's a reason that America is the only developed country that doesn't allow gay marriage: bipartisan brainwashing. It's amazing how Americans are still fighting over this obvious non-issue in 2013. The "deep south" really needs to grow up and shut off Faux News. It's toxic.
I'd like to respond to this argument, but it doesn't seem to be one. Unless I'm missing something, it's primarily name calling.


It's just me being honest, actually. Think about the partisan divide in America. In every other developed country, nobody gives a hoot. But in America, politics is GOP vs. Dem, both of which are pathetic excuses for political parties IMHO. Go to Canada and try to tell someone that Gay Marriage is immoral and against your values; you will find zero friends, and they'll immediately know you're American and assumedly from the south. Being against gay marriage is a subscription to a nonsensical group-think that most other developed countries completely reject because they accepted gay marriage a long time ago and it had zero negative impacts on society.
edit on 28-5-2013 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2013 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2013 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 

Dear markosity1973,

I appreciate your kindness, I expect to learn a lot from you.


I would argue that adding same sex union to the definition of marriage, would not negate opposite sex marriage at all. It would change the definition by what was making a fixed view a pluralistic one.
I may agree with you, let me see if I understand this. Under the new marriage definition, heterosexuals could still get married. Ok, I'm with you and in full agreement.

I wonder about the word "pluralistic." Right, there would be more combinations of people lumped under the heading of "Married," but wouldn't there only be one definition of marriage? That definition would be, roughly, any two people who really like each other can become married with the primary goal of obtaining their own purposes and emotional satisfaction? (Sorry to be so blunt here, but it's sometimes useful in drawing distinctions.)

One of things I dislike most from the straight side, is the belief that gays are bad people. It's not universally held, but that belief is widespread enough to cause the suffering that you and millions of others have gone through, and will continue to go through. I believe that message is pervasive enough so that gays have accepted it, at some deep level, as true. I wish I could hold and comfort you, and anyone else in need. You are, in a literal sense, in a hell of a spot.

The message of personal condemnation is not as prevalent in the case of people who are angry, or greedy, or liars. (You can complete the list if you wish.) We all have a weakness, or a particular failing, that we are prone to. For some reason, people aren't allowed to say "I have a problem with desires for sex with someone who is the same sex as I am," without being condemned.

One common defense to that condemnation is defiance of the rule that the condemnation is based on. "No, homosexual sex is NOT bad." That works for some, for a while.

Is an individual in Maine, affected by an Alabama gay couple? Probably not at all. Is Society affected by declaring that marriage is what we thought it is, and government will give benefits to long-term roomates because they are just as valuable as those who raise children? Yeah, I think Society will be affected.

But in everything, the first consideration must be "Are we helping this individual towards the greatest good?" Not necessarily what they want, but what is truly good.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightOrange

It's just me being honest, actually. .


Really?

I fail to see the great evidence of that.

It seems to me that honesty & integrity would have you abandoning your intensely extremely biased rants in behalf of your bias . . .

considering how you trash anyone else's posts merely because they have beliefs contrary to yours on the topic.

It does NOT seem to me that you are AT ALL HONESTLY

interested in solid data or solid reasonable arguments re the issues of homosexual marriage with or without children.

It seems to me that honesty would demonstrate reasonably dealing with the issue of the earlier major studies purporting to show no significant difference between children reared by same sex couples vs those by heterosexual couples--those still cited studies were grossly flawed

1. methodologically

2. by stacked, cooked data and statistics deliberately jury-rigged by the homosexual researchers.

Ranting about extreme bias by parading repeatedly your own extreme bias is not dealing with the facts of research and the issues much at all--much less "honestly."


Sigh.

edit on 28/5/2013 by BO XIAN because: addition



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN

Originally posted by LightOrange

It's just me being honest, actually. .


Really?

I fail to see the great evidence of that.

It seems to me that honesty & integrity would have you abandoning your intensely extremely biased rants in behalf of your bias . . .

considering how you trash anyone else's posts merely because they have beliefs contrary to yours on the topic.

It does NOT seem to me that you are AT ALL HONESTLY

interested in solid data or solid reasonable arguments re the issues of homosexual marriage with or without children.


Sigh.


If your arguments were valid, my husband and I wouldn't have raised 3 very successful, beautiful children. Who these "upstanding, perfect heterosexual husbands and wives" abandonned. Do you get it, yet?

Your sources are absolute rubbish. Look at them. "Christian organisation of X says gay marriage iz bad mkay". Am I supposed to take that seriously? Then I find some sources from un-biased articles that you post -- the only ones that aren't on Christian websites -- and they all refute your argument. What do you want me to say? "Oh let me keep reading another 40 more of this garbage"? It's a waste of time. Get better material. It has nothing to do with me. And you're the only one I'm getting snippy with because you're insulting my intellect with biased articles that wouldn't get a pass on a 9th grade essay assignment. You might as well be sourcing the O'Reilly Factor for info on the Iraq war.

Don't act as if it's me being stubborn when I just spent nearly 2 hours going through your articles and didn't find anything legitimate. I'm far from a disingenuous person.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join