another post about gay marriages... but this one might make you go "hmmmm"...

that is a good point though here in MD where there are common law marriages, you would have to live together for a number of years(I think it is 7) before you can apply for it
 
Yeah, but now, you could just pay a fee, and get the benefits right away, just like married folk. And then they'd have to cut all the benefits for married people just like they did with pensions, and welfare, when people started flocking to them.
 
Rose said:
But where do your facts come from? You state them as truth, and while I don't necessarily disagree, I also don't necessarily agree. What's your source of information for the statistics and facts you provide?
Click to expand...
I listed several of my sources right behind the numbers from that source.


  • NIH - National Institute of Health.

  • [*]CDC – Center for Disease Control

    [*]AJPH –American Journal of Public Health (    Stanford University School of Medicine)
    [*]Archives of General Psychiatry.
    [*]DSM-IV –Diagnostic Statistical Manual 2nd, 3rd, 4th editions.
    [*]The NEMESIS study (2001) that was accredited by CDC, NIH, and the APA (American Psychiatric Association) among others.
    [*]**Not noted was the APA.


I know these are flimsy resources but I read those silly journals and several others when the that wraskly mailman brings them to me.
 
PuterTutor said:
Sarcasm, Shadow. Say it with me here, it's Sarcasm.
Click to expand...

:rofl4:

When I got to the point of reading the part were people started freaking out I was thinking "I wonder if anyone is gonna tell them this is suppose to be sarcastic"

But...honestly...a lot of those arguments are used by people who are against gay marriages...when you add the extra foolish explnations/examples of those arguments beside them it's such an eye opener for a lot of people...they read it and think "That is UPSURD" then many of them will stop and think "WOW, I had those same thoughts...never realized they were so foolish!"
 
ResearchMonkey said:
I listed several of my sources right behind the numbers from that source.


  • NIH - National Institute of Health.

  • [*]CDC – Center for Disease Control

    [*]AJPH –American Journal of Public Health (    Stanford University School of Medicine)
    [*]Archives of General Psychiatry.
    [*]DSM-IV –Diagnostic Statistical Manual 2nd, 3rd, 4th editions.
    [*]The NEMESIS study (2001) that was accredited by CDC, NIH, and the APA (American Psychiatric Association) among others.
    [*]**Not noted was the APA.


I know these are flimsy resources but I read those silly journals and several others when the that wraskly mailman brings them to me.
Click to expand...


Somehow I managed to miss those. Gratzi!
 
ResearchMonkey said:
Easier does not justify something as being right. May men and women be called “uni’s” hence forth. Also hence forth; Black, Brown, Blue, Red, Pink, Yellow, and White people will be referred to as 'Grey'. Since it the current system labels people differently and is therefore unequivocal .
Click to expand...

How about we just call them "people" without having to attach the useless descriptive "Black" or "White" ?

Why do people refer to me as a man, but might refer to Gato as a black man? I think that most people wouldn't mind if the colour of a person's skin wasn't a delineating factor in the worth of someone's humanity.... why then should sexuality be?
 
Gonz said:
Then you are suggesting that people stop looking for cures to alzheimers or TB or MS or cancer or...

they are all natural & therefore in need of no cure.
Click to expand...

Oy! These are all life threathening ... homosexuality is not life threathening.

I prefer to equate homosexuality as 'left handedness' or 'having blue eyes" . Perhaps a recessive gene passed on through the generation with a specific trigger (be it chemical or biological).
 
Gato_Solo said:
Only if you use that as a ploy not to dispute his facts. Not once did you prove that any of his facts were wrong. You just jumped on the first thing you didn't like about his personal beliefs to deny everything he posted. Was it too much work to disprove his statements, or was it too easy to spin this into something you can debate easier. Either way, it's sloppy work, and I expect better from you. ;)

BTW...this whole thread started out about some persons livejournal. They don't have any credentials, either, but you took what they said as truth. Hypocrisy? :confused:
Click to expand...

I truly believe that this live-journal was written with tongue very much wedged in cheek. It's been taken out of context and used to create this argument.

I can't disprove most of this 'experts' comments. This was a small sample size for this study, and some of the results were biased...BUT it's not the only study researching the biological source for homosexuality. It IS the only one that this 'expert' is attacking.
 
Not that it matters, but I've addressed all of the proposed causes and sources of homosexuality. They all come out to the same end.

Genetic : There's something physically wrong with them. Let's cure it.
Phsychological : There's something mentally wrong with them. Let's cure it.
Choice : Well, big whoop. They chose it. They can damn well live with their choice.


I'm afraid I'm still not seeing any valid reason to change 5000 years of history.
 
Gonz said:
I actually used your words to reach my logical conclusion.

There has to be standards. A line in the sand. An unreproachable point in which a society, a family, a couple or an individual will not broach. America has set this one in the same place as every other society in history.

TD...if it makes you feel better we can use chicken pox, malaria or leprosy. The point is still the same. Either it's genetic & a cure can be found to alleviate the suffering or it's a choice & we don't need to concern ourselves with making choices into law.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing..who said that it had to be cured? See ym recent post...blue eyes are genetic, but we aren't looking to cure that are we?

Re: that line in the sand...that's the point. That line has been moving for centuries and it's time that it moved yet again. "Every other society in history" - that's incorrect.

In Rotterdam, in 1969, a marriage between two practicing homosexuals was performed. (From The Illustrated Book of Sexual Records.
© 1974, 1982, 1997-2001 G.L. Simons)

In fact, in some societies marriages between gay men were officially recognized by the state, as in ancient Sparta, and on the Dorian island of Thera.

Much later, in 2nd century Rome, conjugal contracts between men of about the same age were ridiculed but legally binding

Look at gay marriages among the American Indians, particularly the Sioux and the Cheyenne. In most such marriages one of the two men was a berdache, a transvestite/medicine man who wore men's clothes only when he joined a war party, where he cared for the wounded. The berdaches were especially popular with young people, for they were excellent matchmakers – in a sense they personified the very concept of marriage – and fine love talkers. They got married to either the loafers of the village, or would become the second or third "wife" of the chieftain. Usually their husbands were more ridiculed than they themselves were, not because of homosexuality, which Indians generally tolerated, but because such husbands usually abandoned their economic status in society, and let the berdache do all the work to create the model household.

Anthropologists have discovered that the primary social bond among primates is the same-sex one between males, and usually involves actual sex (see Lionel Tiger, Men in Groups, 1969).

Gaster in Thespis says that marriage doesn't occur at all in ancient near-eastern myths from 3300 BC to 400 BC

Marraige as 'we know it' hasn't been around for 5000 years..or even 500 years. Hell, the definition of Marriage is fairly recent. Not even 60 years ago... both the words Consenting and Adult weren't part of the definition. Arranged marriages were par for the course and 13 year old girls were getting married (often to men well into their majority).
 
Professur said:
Not that it matters, but I've addressed all of the proposed causes and sources of homosexuality. They all come out to the same end.

Genetic : There's something physically wrong with them. Let's cure it.
Phsychological : There's something mentally wrong with them. Let's cure it.
Choice : Well, big whoop. They chose it. They can damn well live with their choice.


I'm afraid I'm still not seeing any valid reason to change 5000 years of history.
Click to expand...

Genetic - there's something physically different with them. You're the one saying that it has to be fixed.
Psychological - you're assuming again that it's a mental deviation. Deviation from your 'norm'...and has to be fixed?
Choice - if they did choose it (which I find surprising), then who are you to disparage their choice? By all means...let them live with it.
 
Professur said:
So, Bish, how about we remove that line altogether. How 'bout that, eh?
Click to expand...
Which line? ... ooh..forget about that. Erm... lemme think.

Nah...there's gotta be a line...never said erase it. How about we go back a few hunderd years to the definition of marriage then?
 
MrBishop said:
How about we just call them "people" without having to attach the useless descriptive "Black" or "White" ?

Why do people refer to me as a man, but might refer to Gato as a black man? I think that most people wouldn't mind if the colour of a person's skin wasn't a delineating factor in the worth of someone's humanity.... why then should sexuality be?
Click to expand...
You have never been referred to as "white guy" or “guy” (as in; you’re not the girl). Do you think Gato is referred to as exclusively “Black man”? I think not.

Sometime is appropriate to describe a person by their physical characteristics. Tall, short, fat, skinny, blonde, red-head, missing leg, tattooed, large, athletic, big nose, blue eyes, good or bad looking, young/old, disabled, challenged, punk, goth, etc and so on.

Why not remove the sexual labels and names too? No more men and no more women, and certainly no hetero/homosexuals.

Definitions serve a purpose, but they have two edges, they can be used in a sentence in a positive fashion or in a hurtful way.

I am proud to be “man”. I have been told I’m cool for “white guy” or "redneck", I felt accepted and reassured from those statement. I have been insulted by those same words, but actually it wasn’t the words, it was the intent of the person saying the words. In fact I have been complimented in sentances where I was called an “asshole”.

Pucker up my friend, the world is a crazy place; you cannot sterilize or neuter everything and save every person from every pain with out a cost to the positive too.

Words are very powerful, and can be dangerous when wielded by an idiot.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
Show me the basis in which the anus is a sexual organ! Show me the sexual development of the anus and colon that supports the naturally reoccuring homosexual act of anal penitration. You can’t because there is none, there is only the stimulas of the rewards center associtated with ‘pooping’ there is no exterior natural lubrication or sexual nerves. There is a prostate, however there a higher rate of prostate cancer among gay men that is direrct result of anal penitration.
Click to expand...

Many homosexuals do not engage in anal sex. It's a fallacy that being homosexual, you 'have' to perform anal sex.

Percentage wise...more heterosexuals engage in anal intercourse than homosexual couples do. I'll see if I can find the source for that...
 
ResearchMonkey said:
You have never been referred to as "white guy" or “guy” (as in; you’re not the girl). Do you think Gato is referred to as exclusively “Black man”? I think not.

Sometime is appropriate to describe a person by their physical characteristics. Tall, short, fat, skinny, blonde, red-head, missing leg, tattooed, large, athletic, big nose, blue eyes, good or bad looking, young/old, disabled, challenged, punk, goth, etc and so on.

Why not remove the sexual labels and names too? No more men and no more women, and certainly no hetero/homosexuals.

Definitions serve a purpose, but they have two edges, they can be used in a sentence in a positive fashion or in a hurtful way.

I am proud to be “man”. I have been told I’m cool for “white guy” or "redneck", I felt accepted and reassured from those statement. I have been insulted by those same words, but actually it wasn’t the words, it was the intent of the person saying the words. In fact I have been complimented in sentances where I was called an “asshole”.

Pucker up my friend, the world is a crazy place; you cannot sterilize or neuter everything and save every person from every pain with out a cost to the positive too.

Words are very powerful, and can be dangerous when wielded by an idiot.
Click to expand...

Granted...but are you treated any differently legally because of those particualar difinitives?
 
MrBishop said:
Oy! These are all life threathening ... homosexuality is not life threathening.

I prefer to equate homosexuality as 'left handedness' or 'having blue eyes" . Perhaps a recessive gene passed on through the generation with a specific trigger (be it chemical or biological).
Click to expand...
There is no gay-gene, they have been saying that over and over but there is no indication what-so-ever of it.
Schizophrenia DOES have gene, maybe we shouldn’t try to fix that either.

Homosexuality itself does not kill people; the resulting increases of terminal infection do kill.

AIDs/HIV have never killed anyone either, not one single person has ever died from HIV. People with HIV die from complications like Pneumonias, the common cold or flu. So HIV itself is not bad, it’s the other things that actually kill the people; we should be focusing on those other actual killing disease. Right?
 
Originally posted by Gonz
Either it's genetic & a cure can be found to alleviate the suffering or it's a choice & we don't need to concern ourselves with making choices into law.
Click to expand...

If it's a choice and 'we' don't need to concern 'ourselves' with making choices into law, but it's okay to discriminate against choices by law?

I think the question is not to make a law allowing homosexuals to marry, but to allow homosexuals equality to marry without having a law making it illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top