Senate panel backs gay marriage ban

[dmp]

I'll ask my question again, since I think it got missed earlier--if you're sure that homosexuality is a choice, then presumably you could choose to live a homosexual lifestyle beginning tomorrow?

I'm quite sure that was answered already. SURE! If I wanted to, I could start banging other guys. I choose how I behave.

If you can't imagine making such a choice, then how can you judge gay people for feeling just as you do?

I don't judge homosexuals for how they feel. I judge them for trying to make THEIR Choice accepted by the rest of society.

The difference between homosexuality and, say, bestiality or pedophilia, is a difference of power. Consenting adults choosing their own partners are equal in power--animals and children are not. So it's ridiculous to portray acceptance of homosexuality as a step down a slippery slope.

I used to have a dog who absolutely concented to humping my leg any chance he could get. The comparison of Homosexual Marriage to Pedophilia is valid; both participants would claim they are DRAWN to their sex partners - that they were BORN with those feelings.

As for all the "destroying society" stuff, it's equally ridiculous. Gay people have contributed immensely to society in every arena. I know dozens of gay people, nearly all of whom are healthy, in committed relationships, paying their taxes, and enjoying family and community. I'm having trouble seeing how these people are destroying society; quite the contrary, they seem to be building it.

You don't read health statistics much, do ya?

 

[Dr Grump]

pssssssssst....hey? read very closely - the article sited sources for it's data. See how that works? Somebody does research, and somebody else reports it.

neat huh?

pppssttt...I know...in a subsequent post I commented on said "research". Neat huh?

 

[dmp]

pppssttt...I know...in a subsequent post I commented on said "research". Neat huh?

Easy to dismiss what one doesn't want to believe, isnt it?

 

[Dr Grump]

Easy to dismiss what one doesn't want to believe, isnt it?

True! But it is hard to dismiss hard evidence. Quoting a person who quoted sources without backing up those sources, nor giving the method said sources used to gain information (nor even posting the ACTUAL research itself) is very easy to dismiss....

 

[dmp]

True! But it is hard to dismiss hard evidence. Quoting a person who quoted sources without backing up those sources, nor giving the method said sources used to gain information (nor even posting the ACTUAL research itself) is very easy to dismiss....

Are you interested in hard evidence? Where's any hard evidence homosexuality isn't harmful to society? There are hundreds of links to other links about studies showing those who participate in homosexual activity are killing themselves, and some studies would show the rational adult how homosexual parents perform a huge mind-fuck on the kids they adopt.

 

[Dr Grump]

Are you interested in hard evidence? Where's any hard evidence homosexuality isn't harmful to society? There are hundreds of links to other links about studies showing those who participate in homosexual activity are killing themselves, and some studies would show the rational adult how homosexual parents perform a huge mind-fuck on the kids they adopt.

Well if people want to post credible studies and the research that backs them up, then I'm all ears. And why would somebody do a study to prove homosexuality ISN'T harmful to society. It's like doing a study saying if you jump out of an aeroplane at 20,000 feet without a parachute you're likely to die. IOW, pointless...Homosexuality is no more harmful to society than hetrosexuality. In people's zeal to prove something they don't like as abhorrant, they try and marginalize a certain part of society to make themselves feel morally superior. It doesn't help that the vast majority (not all, but the VAST majority) back up their assertions by quoting religion. For us non-believers it is just another attempt to impose their values/morals/mores into society .....

 

[jillian]

Are you interested in hard evidence? Where's any hard evidence homosexuality isn't harmful to society? There are hundreds of links to other links about studies showing those who participate in homosexual activity are killing themselves, and some studies would show the rational adult how homosexual parents perform a huge mind-fuck on the kids they adopt.

Homosexual activity is killing gays? Some. AIDS is a problem for the homosexual community. But SDS's are a problem in the heterosexual community, too. Women die of cancer that they get from HPV. In parts of Africa, men with AIDS believe the way to get "cured" is by having sex with a white woman (and passing AIDS on to her...but this is heterosexual men we're talking about, so doesn't count, right?) Right now, the population with the most rapidly rising rate of AIDS is among heterosexual black women. Should heterosexual sex be vilified? Or sex among black people?

Seems to me when someone is aguing against something based on a wholly religious theorum, it is the obligation of *that* person to provide uncontroverted proof of his claims before those who don't share the same religious paradigm find it compelling.

And there hasn't been a shred of real evidence which says the kids of homosexual partnerships are doing any less well than kids in the general population. But that evidence doesn't comport with your worldview, so it should be ignored?

Oh...and btw, no one can be "recruited" to homosexuality. If a straight guy were to kiss another man, he'd feel no sexual attraction. Is that too reality-based?

 

[sitarro]

I'll ask my question again, since I think it got missed earlier--if you're sure that homosexuality is a choice, then presumably you could choose to live a homosexual lifestyle beginning tomorrow?

If you can't imagine making such a choice, then how can you judge gay people for feeling just as you do?

The difference between homosexuality and, say, bestiality or pedophilia, is a difference of power. Consenting adults choosing their own partners are equal in power--animals and children are not. So it's ridiculous to portray acceptance of homosexuality as a step down a slippery slope.

As for all the "destroying society" stuff, it's equally ridiculous. Gay people have contributed immensely to society in every arena. I know dozens of gay people, nearly all of whom are healthy, in committed relationships, paying their taxes, and enjoying family and community. I'm having trouble seeing how these people are destroying society; quite the contrary, they seem to be building it.

Massachusetts society doesn't seem to be suffering from the existence of happily married gay couples. We still have the lowest divorce rate in the country.

Mariner.

I don't think anyone has stated that homosexuals haven't contributed to society, look at Proctology, those doctors stay very busy. AIDS researchers have had lucrative contracts since the 80s. Actors that portray homosexuals seem to do OK. Madonna has ridden that Homo wave to make a lot of money. And speaking of Massachusetts, I would imagine Ted Kennedy owes a lot to homosexuals, how else could a drunken killer continue to get reelected so many times.

Hey Mariner, your from Massachusetts, can you understand Ted Kennedy when he starts ranting or is he speaking in a special code for those that keep him propped up in the Senate? Does your state have no shame, seriously, Ted Kennedy and that Kentucky Derby lookalike contest winner John John Kerry, either you guys are just plain stupid or you have the best sense of humor of any state in the union........oh that's right , "the big dig", you are stupid. :moon4:

 

[Dr Grump]

Hey Mariner, your from Massachusetts, can you understand Ted Kennedy when he starts ranting or is he speaking in a special code for those that keep him propped up in the Senate? Does your state have no shame, seriously, Ted Kennedy and that Kentucky Derby lookalike contest winner John John Kerry, either you guys are just plain stupid or you have the best sense of humor of any state in the union........oh that's right , "the big dig", you are stupid. :moon4:

Coming from the guy who's state gave us Dubya, I wouldn't gloat too much. Actually, what state was Dubya born in....hhhmmmmmmm..... :funnyface

 

[dmp]

Homosexual activity is killing gays? Some. AIDS is a problem for the homosexual community. But SDS's are a problem in the heterosexual community, too. Women die of cancer that they get from HPV. In parts of Africa, men with AIDS believe the way to get "cured" is by having sex with a white woman (and passing AIDS on to her...but this is heterosexual men we're talking about, so doesn't count, right?) Right now, the population with the most rapidly rising rate of AIDS is among heterosexual black women. Should heterosexual sex be vilified? Or sex among black people?

Make excuses if that makes you feel better. Tis simple FACT: one's risk of dying from, or contracting a STD is HUGELY Larger if one engages in Homosexual conduct. Rates of Domestic Violence, Suicide, etc, increase as well.

Seems to me when someone is aguing against something based on a wholly religious theorum, it is the obligation of *that* person to provide uncontroverted proof of his claims before those who don't share the same religious paradigm find it compelling.

Try to stay on topic. Nobody has argued against homosexual marriage from a wholly religious standpoint.

And there hasn't been a shred of real evidence which says the kids of homosexual partnerships are doing any less well than kids in the general population. But that evidence doesn't comport with your worldview, so it should be ignored?

Sure there has. You don't want to look, read, or listen to the evidence.

Oh...and btw, no one can be "recruited" to homosexuality. If a straight guy were to kiss another man, he'd feel no sexual attraction. Is that too reality-based?

Homosexuality is not about attraction - it's about conduct. It's about dealing with one's compulsions until the complusions no longer exist. I used to be compelled to try and FORCE idiots to believe truth. I've changed.

 

[MissileMan]

Are you interested in hard evidence? Where's any hard evidence homosexuality isn't harmful to society? There are hundreds of links to other links about studies showing those who participate in homosexual activity are killing themselves, and some studies would show the rational adult how homosexual parents perform a huge mind-fuck on the kids they adopt.

I don't believe I've seen this study. Do you have a link to it?

 

[cslaughlin13]

sorry dmp but, according to the APA (American Psychological Association), there is nothing indicating that having gay parents hurts children. You can go look for yourself if you wish. Personally, I am more inclined to agree with a public organization with a good scientific foundation instead of a stereotype or a christian publication without any sort of scientific basis. The same exact thing applies to the bible with me as well.

 

[dmp]

sorry dmp but, according to the APA (American Psychological Association), there is nothing indicating that having gay parents hurts children. You can go look for yourself if you wish. Personally, I am more inclined to agree with a public organization with a good scientific foundation instead of a stereotype or a christian publication without any sort of scientific basis. The same exact thing applies to the bible with me as well.

Define 'hurt'. Define results? Gay parents hurt kids because kids grow up feeling Homosexuality is perfectly normal and acceptable. Gay parents hurt kids because Kids grow up without a father or mother, depending. ANY family missing critical parts will suffer.

 

[sitarro]

Coming from the guy who's state gave us Dubya, I wouldn't gloat too much. Actually, what state was Dubya born in....hhhmmmmmmm..... :funnyface

What , is this suppose to be a test. I'm not a Democrat, I know the name of the current Vice President, The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, etc.

But to humor your sorry horse's ass, Conneticut.His father was born in Massachusetts in some bullshit little township. They both were intelligent enough to get the hell out of the North East and settle in Texas though. :fu2:

 

[cslaughlin13]

first thing, is growing up and accepting homosexuality as normal anything hurtful? If you think about it, would kids really feel hurt by thinking that, would it affect their mental state and throw them into depression? chances are, that the kids are probably going to be fine. The first view that you present is probably a Christian view, and by the way as I am defining hurt as in the weakening of the mental state of a child.
I have also seen gay families and the people seem perfectly normal to me. Also another point I think that you should consider, would you rather have a child grow up in an orphanage his/her whole life or have gay parents? I positive that the latter would be much more appealing because at least they are having somebody close to them with money that can provide for them.

 

[sitarro]

sorry dmp but, according to the APA (American Psychological Association), there is nothing indicating that having gay parents hurts children. You can go look for yourself if you wish. Personally, I am more inclined to agree with a public organization with a good scientific foundation instead of a stereotype or a christian publication without any sort of scientific basis. The same exact thing applies to the bible with me as well.

Psychologists, yea they're scientific. My friend's idiot girlfriend is the head of a psychiatric hospital in a major city and she is easily one of the looniest people I know......obviously I'm not counting the residents of this message board.

Would you agree that kids that are raised with parents who are members of the KKK aren't at risk of being bigoted little racists themselves?

 

[cslaughlin13]

sitarro, its not really fair to compare people from the kkk and homosexuals. The kkk is all about hating other people other than their own race. Homosexuals don't say that straight people are bad, we don't attack others for being different.

Actually, psychology is quite a science. They actually use true scientific methods (like experiments and observations), and much logic as well. True, they are technically considered a social science, but their methods are purely scientific. They should not be classified into the same realms that philosophy and sociology are grouped into. If you have ever looked into a psychological report or dissertation, they are quite scientific.

 

[jillian]

Psychologists, yea they're scientific. My friend's idiot girlfriend is the head of a psychiatric hospital in a major city and she is easily one of the looniest people I know......obviously I'm not counting the residents of this message board.

Would you agree that kids that are raised with parents who are members of the KKK aren't at risk of being bigoted little racists themselves?

I know some eccentric psychologists, too...probably what draws some of them to their field. But I'd say psychological studies give a far better assessment than ideologically, religiously biased statements without any rational basis.

There are some pretty messed up message board residents, too.

By the by, yeah...I think that KKK parents damage their children. But, amazingly, I've heard no one arguing for a Constitutional Amendment banning their ability to marry and reproduce. I think they're a far greater danger to society than gays and lesbians will ever be, though. Thanks for raising the issue.

 

[Avatar4321]

sitarro, its not really fair to compare people from the kkk and homosexuals. The kkk is all about hating other people other than their own race. Homosexuals don't say that straight people are bad, we don't attack others for being different.

Actually, psychology is quite a science. They actually use true scientific methods (like experiments and observations), and much logic as well. True, they are technically considered a social science, but their methods are purely scientific. They should not be classified into the same realms that philosophy and sociology are grouped into. If you have ever looked into a psychological report or dissertation, they are quite scientific.

Actually the comparison is exactly on the mark. Both involve parents teaching destructive values to their children.

And if you dont think homosexuals are attacking the rest of us, then you arent really listening to the Agenda. How can you say they are not attacking us when the first thing out of their mouths are accusations of homophobia and other bs?

 

[mattskramer]

Then why single out homos?

It doesn’t necessarily single out homosexuals. Consider this. Many people argue that homosexuality is merely a choice. A man decides to engage in intimate sexual behavior with a man. What about the bisexuals? What about people who basically identify themselves as heterosexuals but happen to find someone of the same sex to be particularly physically attractive. In that sense, I would not necessarily consider a law that allows homosexual marriage to be one that gives special rights to homosexuals or one that singles out homosexuals. Apparently, homosexuals can choose to be heterosexual and heterosexuals can choose to be homosexual. Allowing for heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage sort of levels the “playing field”.

Besides, we have laws that single out different groups of people. We have laws that prohibit people within certain age groups from doing certain things. Through affirmative action, we have laws and rules that give extra consideration to people who fall into certain groups. Now, the “Defense of Marriage Act” and other legislation that restricts and codifies the definition of marriage to mean that relationship just between a man and a woman does single out gays. Also, consider that it used to be generally acceptable for employers to discriminate against people of particular religions (people who choose to believe certain things). Now we have rules that prohibit employers from discriminating against people of certain religions. Could it now be said that we have laws that single members of less popular religions? By the way, did you know that some area is considering (or has considered) creation of a rule that would allow landlords to evict families that consist of live-in couples who are not married? It looks like such a law singles out those who choose to be non-married couples.

Come on. The bottom line is that there have been laws throughout the ages that single out different sets of people for special consideration – rules of inclusion and rules of exclusion – in one shape, form, or fashion or another. Therefore, along with all of the other arguments against gay marriage, I consider this one to be practically insignificant. It just does not matter.