Gay Marriage

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: irishScott


And actually my reasons are very rational, but I sure as hell don't see the need to explain them to you. That said, as you're so big on specifics, I'd like to see some "countless links" to these studies you mention.

2 posts above this one of yours that i'm quoting.

EDIT: hehe, take a gander at thsi annotated study:

Groth, A. N., & Birnbaum, H. J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175-181.

Screened 175, 15- to 64-year-old males convicted of sexual assault against children with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The subjects divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)

Is that the kind of left-hook to your jaw that you were looking for? many more studies linked on the site.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: irishScott
Because people are stupid.

Personally I don't care. At worst being gay is a result of a genetic/environmental accident. I don't mean any disrespect by that, just a cold hard fact. If the whole world was gay the human race wouldn't be able to reproduce through natural means. It is therefore the definition of unnatural.

Now when it comes to gay couples raising heterosexual kids, I start having problems.

homosexual animals are created by nature. They may not be able to reproduce, just as any other sterile-born animal, so how is that unnatural? It is a part of nature. It always has been.


When you consider the hopps and hurdles that a homosexual couple must go through to adopt a child, it has become rather common knowledge (well...factual, despite how many interest groups choose to ignore the reality of the situation and base their "fact" on assumptions), that homosexual couples not only raise well-balanced heterosexual kids, but tend to do so on a more successful basis than the ave. heterosexual couple.

The single most important thing for a couple to pass on to their kids when it comes to relationship and sexuality, is LOVE.

You're more than welcome to see that how you want, but you'd be going against the cold hard facts if you believe that homosexual couples are any threat to raising children.

True, but my logic is straightforward. You learn in PSYC 100 that the cause of homosexuality is commonly accepted to be a combination of nature/nurture. You increase the homosexuality on the nuture side of the equation, you raise a kid whose more likely to turn out homosexual. There are studies to back up my side too here.

Personally I see that as a negative outcome. Sure it's probably never going to grow to the point where it would seriously affect society or anything, but at the same time I see it as denying a kid a chance at passing on their genes. Tell me how that's positive.

Obviously neither side has been conclusively proven, and it depends greatly on the couple in question, but until more evidence is gathered one way or another I'm sticking to that argument.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: irishScott


And actually my reasons are very rational, but I sure as hell don't see the need to explain them to you. That said, as you're so big on specifics, I'd like to see some "countless links" to these studies you mention.

2 posts above this one of yours that i'm quoting.

EDIT: hehe, take a gander at thsi annotated study:

Groth, A. N., & Birnbaum, H. J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175-181.

Screened 175, 15- to 64-year-old males convicted of sexual assault against children with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The subjects divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)

Is that the kind of left-hook to your jaw that you were looking for? many more studies linked on the site.

OK, so homosexuals typically aren't pedophiles. Good for them. Not my point.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: irishScott


And actually my reasons are very rational, but I sure as hell don't see the need to explain them to you. That said, as you're so big on specifics, I'd like to see some "countless links" to these studies you mention.

2 posts above this one of yours that i'm quoting.

EDIT: hehe, take a gander at thsi annotated study:

Groth, A. N., & Birnbaum, H. J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175-181.

Screened 175, 15- to 64-year-old males convicted of sexual assault against children with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The subjects divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)

Is that the kind of left-hook to your jaw that you were looking for? many more studies linked on the site.

OK, so homosexuals typically aren't pedophiles. Good for them. Not my point.

cool, so you didn't follow the link I mentioned and go to the page that lists about 30+ empirical studies involving homosexual parents.

BTW, the fear of homosexuals as pedophiles tends to be the number 1 underlying prejudice that the uninformed attach to their fear of gay parents. That, and the "fear" that the kids will become gay. In fact, one of the studies mentions that of the groups studied, 90% of the boys raised by homosexual fathers were heterosexual.

Sift through yourself. I'm not doing any more work for you. It's all there, whether or not you choose to ignore the only facts that exist on this subject...

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: irishScott
Because people are stupid.

Personally I don't care. At worst being gay is a result of a genetic/environmental accident. I don't mean any disrespect by that, just a cold hard fact. If the whole world was gay the human race wouldn't be able to reproduce through natural means. It is therefore the definition of unnatural.

Now when it comes to gay couples raising heterosexual kids, I start having problems.

homosexual animals are created by nature. They may not be able to reproduce, just as any other sterile-born animal, so how is that unnatural? It is a part of nature. It always has been.


When you consider the hopps and hurdles that a homosexual couple must go through to adopt a child, it has become rather common knowledge (well...factual, despite how many interest groups choose to ignore the reality of the situation and base their "fact" on assumptions), that homosexual couples not only raise well-balanced heterosexual kids, but tend to do so on a more successful basis than the ave. heterosexual couple.

The single most important thing for a couple to pass on to their kids when it comes to relationship and sexuality, is LOVE.

You're more than welcome to see that how you want, but you'd be going against the cold hard facts if you believe that homosexual couples are any threat to raising children.

True, but my logic is straightforward. You learn in PSYC 100 that the cause of homosexuality is commonly accepted to be a combination of nature/nurture. You increase the homosexuality on the nuture side of the equation, you raise a kid whose more likely to turn out homosexual. There are studies to back up my side too here.

Personally I see that as a negative outcome. Sure it's probably never going to grow to the point where it would seriously affect society or anything, but at the same time I see it as denying a kid a chance at passing on their genes. Tell me how that's positive.

Obviously neither side has been conclusively proven, and it depends greatly on the couple in question, but until more evidence is gathered one way or another I'm sticking to that argument.

Yay! Psych 100 expert in the house :roll:

Like I said, there are plenty of studies, you just have to read them.

I agree with the nature/nurture issue, but I've yet to see a case that suggests nurture can push someone to homosexuality. If anything, that would be the realm of bi-sexuality.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: irishScott


And actually my reasons are very rational, but I sure as hell don't see the need to explain them to you. That said, as you're so big on specifics, I'd like to see some "countless links" to these studies you mention.

2 posts above this one of yours that i'm quoting.

EDIT: hehe, take a gander at thsi annotated study:

Groth, A. N., & Birnbaum, H. J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175-181.

Screened 175, 15- to 64-year-old males convicted of sexual assault against children with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The subjects divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)

Is that the kind of left-hook to your jaw that you were looking for? many more studies linked on the site.

OK, so homosexuals typically aren't pedophiles. Good for them. Not my point.

cool, so you didn't follow the link I mentioned and go to the page that lists about 30+ empirical studies involving homosexual parents.

BTW, the fear of homosexuals as pedophiles tends to be the number 1 underlying prejudice that the uninformed attach to their fear of gay parents. That, and the "fear" that the kids will become gay. In fact, one of the studies mentions that of the groups studied, 90% of the boys raised by homosexual fathers were heterosexual.

Sift through yourself. I'm not doing any more work for you. It's all there, whether or not you choose to ignore the only facts that exist on this subject...

Yes I did, but it's 4:14 am here and I don't feel like taking the time to sift through this stuff in detail. So I jumped to the conclusion, which reaffirms my statement that while some information is available, more is needed to confirm one way or another. The fact it mentions a relative lack of studies on the offspring of gay parents in adolescent/adulthood further proves my point.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: irishScott
Because people are stupid.

Personally I don't care. At worst being gay is a result of a genetic/environmental accident. I don't mean any disrespect by that, just a cold hard fact. If the whole world was gay the human race wouldn't be able to reproduce through natural means. It is therefore the definition of unnatural.

Now when it comes to gay couples raising heterosexual kids, I start having problems.

homosexual animals are created by nature. They may not be able to reproduce, just as any other sterile-born animal, so how is that unnatural? It is a part of nature. It always has been.


When you consider the hopps and hurdles that a homosexual couple must go through to adopt a child, it has become rather common knowledge (well...factual, despite how many interest groups choose to ignore the reality of the situation and base their "fact" on assumptions), that homosexual couples not only raise well-balanced heterosexual kids, but tend to do so on a more successful basis than the ave. heterosexual couple.

The single most important thing for a couple to pass on to their kids when it comes to relationship and sexuality, is LOVE.

You're more than welcome to see that how you want, but you'd be going against the cold hard facts if you believe that homosexual couples are any threat to raising children.

True, but my logic is straightforward. You learn in PSYC 100 that the cause of homosexuality is commonly accepted to be a combination of nature/nurture. You increase the homosexuality on the nuture side of the equation, you raise a kid whose more likely to turn out homosexual. There are studies to back up my side too here.

Personally I see that as a negative outcome. Sure it's probably never going to grow to the point where it would seriously affect society or anything, but at the same time I see it as denying a kid a chance at passing on their genes. Tell me how that's positive.

Obviously neither side has been conclusively proven, and it depends greatly on the couple in question, but until more evidence is gathered one way or another I'm sticking to that argument.

Yay! Psych 100 expert in the house :roll:

Like I said, there are plenty of studies, you just have to read them.

I agree with the nature/nurture issue, but I've yet to see a case that suggests nurture can push someone to homosexuality. If anything, that would be the realm of bi-sexuality.

Did I ever claim to be an expert? Nope.

And yes, there are plenty of studies. When I have time tomorrow night I might dig up a few of my own to post, assuming this conversation hasn't been superseded by 8 more pages of debate by that point.

I also said it was "more likely" not that it was certain. Geez you guys really aren't ones for lighthearted debate are you? I never said my argument was infallible either. I just don't have time to examine the information in detail right now. Good night.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: irishScott


And actually my reasons are very rational, but I sure as hell don't see the need to explain them to you. That said, as you're so big on specifics, I'd like to see some "countless links" to these studies you mention.

2 posts above this one of yours that i'm quoting.

EDIT: hehe, take a gander at thsi annotated study:

Groth, A. N., & Birnbaum, H. J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175-181.

Screened 175, 15- to 64-year-old males convicted of sexual assault against children with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The subjects divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)

Is that the kind of left-hook to your jaw that you were looking for? many more studies linked on the site.

OK, so homosexuals typically aren't pedophiles. Good for them. Not my point.

cool, so you didn't follow the link I mentioned and go to the page that lists about 30+ empirical studies involving homosexual parents.

BTW, the fear of homosexuals as pedophiles tends to be the number 1 underlying prejudice that the uninformed attach to their fear of gay parents. That, and the "fear" that the kids will become gay. In fact, one of the studies mentions that of the groups studied, 90% of the boys raised by homosexual fathers were heterosexual.

Sift through yourself. I'm not doing any more work for you. It's all there, whether or not you choose to ignore the only facts that exist on this subject...

Yes I did, but it's 4:14 am here and I don't feel like taking the time to sift through this stuff in detail. So I jumped to the conclusion, which reaffirms my statement that while some information is available, more is needed to confirm one way or another. The fact it mentions a relative lack of studies on the offspring of gay parents in adolescent/adulthood further proves my point.

Sure, but that's nothing more than saying, well....nothing.

Is there some magic number of studies that it takes to convince you and others? Are you waiting for 60 more studies that say the same thing that 40 studies have already shown? Is 59 more studies too few?

If you know anything about research papers and language, then you'd realize that the phrase, "More studies are needed to further investigate this claim," appears in nearly every publication. Granted, I don't hover around psychology very much (though my mother is one), as my field is genetics and mobio, but whenever I see that phrase, I don't immediately think, "hmm, I guess I need a handful of further studies before I'm willing to buy this crap about BRAC1 being involved in breast cancer."

Yes, there will always be the need for more studies, it is essential. But after 5 or 10 studies have failed to reject the previous attempts, you can pretty much consider a scientific study "good to go." They've far exceeded that thresh-hold here, and with human subjects, which will always have small sample sizes. Such is the nature of clinical/psychological testing.

I mean, we can't purpose-breed humans as we can mice. Well, not yet, anyway.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: irishScott
Because people are stupid.

Personally I don't care. At worst being gay is a result of a genetic/environmental accident. I don't mean any disrespect by that, just a cold hard fact. If the whole world was gay the human race wouldn't be able to reproduce through natural means. It is therefore the definition of unnatural.

Now when it comes to gay couples raising heterosexual kids, I start having problems.

homosexual animals are created by nature. They may not be able to reproduce, just as any other sterile-born animal, so how is that unnatural? It is a part of nature. It always has been.


When you consider the hopps and hurdles that a homosexual couple must go through to adopt a child, it has become rather common knowledge (well...factual, despite how many interest groups choose to ignore the reality of the situation and base their "fact" on assumptions), that homosexual couples not only raise well-balanced heterosexual kids, but tend to do so on a more successful basis than the ave. heterosexual couple.

The single most important thing for a couple to pass on to their kids when it comes to relationship and sexuality, is LOVE.

You're more than welcome to see that how you want, but you'd be going against the cold hard facts if you believe that homosexual couples are any threat to raising children.

True, but my logic is straightforward. You learn in PSYC 100 that the cause of homosexuality is commonly accepted to be a combination of nature/nurture. You increase the homosexuality on the nuture side of the equation, you raise a kid whose more likely to turn out homosexual. There are studies to back up my side too here.

Personally I see that as a negative outcome. Sure it's probably never going to grow to the point where it would seriously affect society or anything, but at the same time I see it as denying a kid a chance at passing on their genes. Tell me how that's positive.

Obviously neither side has been conclusively proven, and it depends greatly on the couple in question, but until more evidence is gathered one way or another I'm sticking to that argument.

Yay! Psych 100 expert in the house :roll:

Like I said, there are plenty of studies, you just have to read them.

I agree with the nature/nurture issue, but I've yet to see a case that suggests nurture can push someone to homosexuality. If anything, that would be the realm of bi-sexuality.

Did I ever claim to be an expert? Nope.

And yes, there are plenty of studies. When I have time tomorrow night I might dig up a few of my own to post, assuming this conversation hasn't been superseded by 8 more pages of debate by that point.

I also said it was "more likely" not that it was certain. Geez you guys really aren't ones for lighthearted debate are you? I never said my argument was infallible either. I just don't have time to examine the information in detail right now. Good night.

Fair enough...it's just one of those comments that claims scientific evidence when all it really does is mask prejudice (whether or not you feel that you have such prejudice).

That sticks out like a sore thumb to me, and I tend to jump.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

Quick question to gay marriage opponents: What are your thoughts on bringing up things like polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc in defense of the only man + woman marriage argument when they have nothing to do with each other?

Are you suggesting I'm a gay marriage opponent? And if so, based on what? Or are you just looking for strawmen?

It's an open question. Answer it if you feel like it. I don't care either way.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

Quick question to gay marriage opponents: What are your thoughts on bringing up things like polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc in defense of the only man + woman marriage argument when they have nothing to do with each other?

Are you suggesting I'm a gay marriage opponent? And if so, based on what? Or are you just looking for strawmen?

It's an open question. Answer it if you feel like it. I don't care either way.

I can't answer it, because it presupposes something which you've assumed but can't actually prove - that I asked the question "in defense of the only man + woman marriage argument". It's akin to me asking you when exactly you stopped molesting children. If you never started, you can't say when you stopped. Besides, since your question was to gay marriage opponents, a group which you still can't demonstrate includes me, it's not really mine to answer. Jumping to conclusions must be good exercise for you.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Quick question to all in favor of gay marriage: What are your thoughts on polygamy (presuming it's among consentual adults)?

Personally, I can't seen any logically consistent reasons to be against polygamy while still being for gay marriage, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the question.

Quick question to gay marriage opponents: What are your thoughts on bringing up things like polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc in defense of the only man + woman marriage argument when they have nothing to do with each other?

Are you suggesting I'm a gay marriage opponent? And if so, based on what? Or are you just looking for strawmen?

It's an open question. Answer it if you feel like it. I don't care either way.

I can't answer it, because it presupposes something which you've assumed but can't actually prove - that I asked the question "in defense of the only man + woman marriage argument". It's akin to me asking you when exactly you stopped molesting children. If you never started, you can't say when you stopped. Besides, since your question was to gay marriage opponents, a group which you still can't demonstrate includes me, it's not really mine to answer. Jumping to conclusions must be good exercise for you.

Ok here's your answer: Polygamy and same sex marriage are not related. As someone mentioned above, discuss it in another thread.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Robor

Ok here's your answer: Polygamy and same sex marriage are not related. As someone mentioned above, discuss it in another thread.

They are related, but you're too bigoted to see that.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Robor

Ok here's your answer: Polygamy and same sex marriage are not related. As someone mentioned above, discuss it in another thread.

They are related, but you're too bigoted to see that.

I would've gone for "dumb", but bigoted probably works too.

Robor, of course they are related - they are both currently-prohibited examples of fundamental liberties our gov't should allow (if you take a libertarian view of gov't) but doesn't. Neither really affect anyone else but the consenting adults involved, and yet are prohibited by gov't.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't support gay marriage because I don't support straight marriage. As an advocate of minimal government I am critical, but not necessarily opposed, to all government institutions, services and jurisdiction. I'm not exactly sure how marriage certification became state jurisdiction but it was a mistake and should be privatized; people can proclaim their love in any way they want.

Gov't still has a potential role in marriage, if only as a recordkeeper. I have no problem with gov't receiving and holding marriage certificates like they already do with birth certificates, and I don't see a problem with gov't granting certain default rights to spouses, as long as the right to opt out exists.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
My issue with marriage rights is because there are federal bonuses to being married (IRS). There are other fiscal bonuses to marriage (health insurance coverage comes to mind). Why should some states impress their views to multi-state companies and Federal laws? It is with that view that I feel one standard must be used. If you marry in State X, does State Y recognize it? Does Company Z recognize it? Does the Federal level recognize it? If they are *forced* to recognize it, then there should be a single standard. Otherwise, if the states all want their own views on marriage, then companies/other states/fed should NOT be forced to recognize it.

I am not slanted one way or the other, but I *really* have a problem with the double standards that exist with State Rights impressing themselves beyond their borders.

First off there is a Marriage penalty too.

Secondly gay have the same right to marry that I do. Saying otherwise is just semantics/ spin/BS.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: EXman
Secondly gay have the same right to marry that I do. Saying otherwise is just semantics/ spin/BS.

You don't want people to call you an idiot, but then you claim that gays have equal marriage rights since a gay person can get married as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

So when inter-racial marriages were banned, that wasn't an infringement on anyone's rights since everyone could still marry a person of their own race?

Please keep walking down this road, it will be a fun journey to watch.

Here we are, years into the discussion, and the anti's still can't come up with one cogent argument. It's really a testament to human idiocy that the "discussion" can go on for so long when one side is completely devoid of a single logical argument.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: EXman
Secondly gay have the same right to marry that I do. Saying otherwise is just semantics/ spin/BS.

You don't want people to call you an idiot, but then you claim that gays have equal marriage rights since a gay person can get married as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

In a certain sense, EXman's right - a 'straight' person has no greater rights than a 'gay' person, as they're both free to marry a person of the opposite sex. And that's why I'm no fan of the 'equal protection' argument, even if I'm not opposed to gay marriage. There are simply better arguments for making the case.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: EXman
Secondly gay have the same right to marry that I do. Saying otherwise is just semantics/ spin/BS.

You don't want people to call you an idiot, but then you claim that gays have equal marriage rights since a gay person can get married as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

In a certain sense, EXman's right - a 'straight' person has no greater rights than a 'gay' person, as they're both free to marry a person of the opposite sex. And that's why I'm no fan of the 'equal protection' argument, even if I'm not opposed to gay marriage. There are simply better arguments for making the case.

I agree there are better arguments, but you don't ignore an opposing side's argument in a court brief just because you have better ones. You address all the opposite side's points, and some have actually used this argument, although it's mainly a right wing talking point (check Concerned Women for America, etc).

But Exman is accusing the pro-gay marriage crowd of semantics, when he clearly doesn't understand the definition of the word. To claim that equality exists because gays can simply marry a person of the opposite sex IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF PLAYING SEMANTICS. Claiming that a group has every right to do something which it has absolutly no interest under any circumstances in doing is twisting the words of current law to achieve a desired interpretation.

Flip it around to illustrate the absurdity of the argument. Say the marriage laws tomorrow across the country became "you can only marry someone of the same sex." Would that be "equal" for heterosexuals because they'd have the same rights as all gays, or would it be discriminatory on its face since no hetero would care to marry another hetero?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

I love this one. "What nature intended"... An argument embraced by the religious right when gay marriage or abortion is the topic of discussion, but conveniently ignored when talking about evolution or how God made us to be the greatest of all his creation. If conservatives are so desperate to protect the natural order of things, how come you find so few of the religious right actively involved in the conservation movement? Or is conservation just unnatural? They deny evolution, so you can't even claim that they're in favor of destroying habitat so animals can evolve quicker... Maybe they're just trying to hasten God's will.

And what did nature intend anyway? I was lucky enough to travel to the Galapagos Islands in 8th Grade. The archipelago is a haven for seabirds, a place where many species go to breed and raise their chicks as it is free from land-based predators. We happened to go during the season when the boobies and albatross were rearing their chicks (there is little in the world uglier than a moulting albatross). Our guide, Rolondo, had grown up in Ecuador and had been a tour guide in the Galapagos since his teens. The depth of knowledge he had about the particulars of the species endemic to the islands was fascinating, as was his ability to recall stories about virtually any species of bird making off with a tourist's hat.

On the first day, we visited Genovesa, where we were delighted to find a colony of Blue Footed Boobies. Rolondo was busy telling us about the mating habits of the birds, and happened to pick out a couple nearby engaged in a courtship dance. While we stood fascinated by the bizarre display, Rolondo began to laugh. As he mustered the words to address our confusion, he began with, "Well, I don't want to offend anybody, we occasionally get some Americans who aren't comfortable with this... these birds are both male."

I, being raised by lesbians and accompanied by a lesbian, was not shocked. But some of our party were, at this point, incredibly confused. "Wait," asked an elderly British man. "Are we to understand that these birds are... homosexual?" "Of course," replied Rolondo, "It's actually surprisingly frequent in the mating pairs that we see in the boobie populations." Obviously his use of the term "mating" was a bit suspect, but the point was clear; boobies have caught "the gay."

So it's clear that homosexuality exists in nature outside of humans. But we're not just talking about homosexuality now, are we? We're talking about gays raising offspring. That's a whole different bag of worms. And for that, I'm going to take us 100 miles south, to the island of Española.

We visited Española on our last day in the islands, to visit the colonies of albatross raising their chicks. Rolondo told us how albatross are one of the few species on Earth that mate for life. Despite spending months apart at sea, albatross can return to the same breeding grounds and remember their mate through an intricate dance the two duplicate. And, like the boobies, some albatross are totally gay.

As we walked along the path, large albatross nests and ugly, ugly albatross goslings (or whatever the hell they're called) on either side of us. Rolondo stopped us in front of an empty nest, dismayed that the pair that shared it were not around. Apparently, one of the breeding pairs of albatrosses had met with an unfortunate fate; it is unknown if one or both parents had died, or simply flown off, but for whatever reason, a young albatross was abandoned before it could fend for itself. Normally this equals a dead albatross chick. But apparently, one of the gay couples, unable to lay fertile eggs, had taken it upon themselves to raise the chick. The gay albatross adopted a baby to keep it from dying.

Gay adoption exists in nature.

So, getting back to that question of what "nature intends"... What, pray tell, does nature intend? To reproduce and pass on genes? Gays aren't going to do that anyway, and they exist in species besides humans, so it's not purely a question of free will. If nature intends that genes are passed on, then a gay couple raising a straight baby to reproductive age is more in line with what nature intends than if that baby were to die, wouldn't you agree?

But that argument is academic anyway, since, when it comes down to it, nature doesn't intend anything. We like to attach intention to the workings of the world because we ultimately all would like a satisfactory answer to the question, "Why are we here?" that doesn't contain, "random chance." But nature doesn't intend anything for us. It doesn't intend anything for the boobies. It doesn't intend anything because nature is just a word that we use to describe the overwhelming complexity of a diverse biosphere that we simply cannot grasp. Life doesn't have a purpose. It doesn't need one. The purpose is ours.

I love the justification those in favor of this give...it is about as scripted as those who oppose it....


Let me slow it down for you a little....barring scientific advancements such as invitro...there must be both a penis and a vagina involved in procreating....simple

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: brandonb
It really has nothing to do with religion.

Its not bigot Chritians wanting to kick gays in the balls.

It comes down to this. Marriage is a concept from the bible.

blatenly incorrect!

chinese have had marriage for thousands of years, probably before the bible was writen.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: bobcpg 2 men or 2 women can not have a baby together...

we are already having too many babies... many in foster home etc

gay marriage would help with adoption.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: brandonb
It really has nothing to do with religion.

Its not bigot Chritians wanting to kick gays in the balls.

It comes down to this. Marriage is a concept from the bible.

blatenly incorrect!

chinese have had marriage for thousands of years, probably before the bible was writen.

A bigot is impervious to logic and fact because a bigot is somebody who just knows he is right because the thing he opposes is bad. His emotional certainty it's bad is the bedrock of his truth. The bigot is a master of rationalization and will just find new reasons to couch his bigotry in.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: brandonb
It really has nothing to do with religion.

Its not bigot Chritians wanting to kick gays in the balls.

It comes down to this. Marriage is a concept from the bible.

blatenly incorrect!

chinese have had marriage for thousands of years, probably before the bible was writen.

actually your the one who is wrong.....if.....
if you believe that Adam and Eve were the first 2 people put on the earth......
then it was a biblical first......because God made Eve for Adam..thus marriage.

btw--this is just a clarification of how the people whop oppose this issue think!

Tou need to know these things in order to debate and discuss with these people( as in those who would deny the right of marriage to the gay community) in a manner which they understand.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: bozack

I love the justification those in favor of this give...it is about as scripted as those who oppose it....

Let me slow it down for you a little....barring scientific advancements such as invitro...there must be both a penis and a vagina involved in procreating....simple

Thanks captain obvious. Apparently we need to slow it down even more since you like building men of straw and then patting yourself on the back for swatting them down. Did you see anyone deny that both sperm and egg are required for procreation? And is there a sperm shortage that you are aware of?

It's so typical of the right to want to put "barring scientific advancement" into their arguments since many of them consider science evil and anti-god anyway. Yet funny how they don't mind all those medical advancements when they get their dick caught in the jacuzzi drain. Then it's "DOCTOR!"

As to procreation, how's that matter again? Are we banning infertile couples from marrying? Don't we have more children in group homes and up for adoption than we have couples willing to care for them? Try making at least a little sense.