What with all this talk of homosexuality

[Avatar4321]

Your argument is dishonest. The affect of homsexuality on society is quite obvious. First, they quietly came out of the closet. Then they started making small demands. Now, they want complete legitimacy for what is at the crux of the entire argument ... aberrant behavior.

It affects my life when a dishonest agenda is forcing something unnatural and obscene onto my children as being as legitimate as heterosexuality. Common sense and logic are being thrown out the window for yet another episode of the left attempting to force by law what they cannot gain by popular support ... the tyranny of the minority.

Not to mention the billions in Tax payer dollars being spent to cure diseases that could be prevented if anyone bothered to actually listen to what society has always taught.

 

[Diuretic]

I reckon their dirtiest, most cunning effort was sneaking that gay hooker Gannon into the White House - not even through the - ahem - "service" entrance at the "back door". Nope, they went full frontal and rammed him straight through the front right into the Press Corps. Small wonder Scotty got sweaty and Snow had to take over. Cunning bastards those queers

 

[cslaughlin13]

pale rider, I just saw that statistic but don't you think you might have to question its validity for a second?
The chances that being gay is going make you have 10 times the amount of accidents.
17 times more accidents in traffic?
The suicide and the murder rate would be higher, but not 26 and 87 more times (and thats because many people are intollerent AND/OR xenophobic).
and heart attacks doesn't add up either.
also, they are comparing journals from 1993 to 2001. A lot of things have changed since then.
Also the site that you obtained your source from seems biased against homosexuality.
Also I wouldn't trust a statistic that didn't come from a nationally recognized credible source like the APA or the CDC. Also, the one PhD that was in the study had is degree in speech communication, which as I'm sure you know is not a great degree to do scientific studies with. I will give you credit that you tried to find a factual source, however, the source is not scientifically credible.

 

[Kagom]

Kag, kag, kag.... c'mon now son, we've been over, and over, and over this. You KNOW that the queer lifestyle is dangerous. There's VOLUMES upon VOLUMES of PROOF EVERYWHERE on the web. STOP LYING!

]

[/URL]

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2559

And as I've told you before, sir, I question your source.

 

[Kagom]

pale rider, I just saw that statistic but don't you think you might have to question its validity for a second?
The chances that being gay is going make you have 10 times the amount of accidents.
17 times more accidents in traffic?
The suicide and the murder rate would be higher, but not 26 and 87 more times (and thats because many people are intollerent AND/OR xenophobic).
and heart attacks doesn't add up either.
also, they are comparing journals from 1993 to 2001. A lot of things have changed since then.
Also the site that you obtained your source from seems biased against homosexuality.
Also I wouldn't trust a statistic that didn't come from a nationally recognized credible source like the APA or the CDC. Also, the one PhD that was in the study had is degree in speech communication, which as I'm sure you know is not a great degree to do scientific studies with. I will give you credit that you tried to find a factual source, however, the source is not scientifically credible.

Bless you for pointing it out, but in the end, it does no good here. We throw things back and forth all the time.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

And as I've told you before, sir, I question your source.

As you should:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html

Although Cameron has been criticized in the popular press, extensive scientific critiques of his group's research have not been widely available. Those that have been published have been brief or appeared in obscure journals. This inattention by the scientific community is perhaps not surprising, given the poor quality of the Cameron group's data and the low prestige of the journals in which they have published. Most scientists have simply ignored the Cameron studies.

Of course, it's a UC Davis website, so don't trust that liberal *** propoganda. Hippie.

 

[Dr Grump]

And as I've told you before, sir, I question your source.

Sarcasm aside, you would do well to question the source. For a start, let's look at the source of the articles:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apinfo/aboutap

Apologetics Press:
What We Believe
The following principles of truth are accepted by those who actively participate in this work:

1. God is, and man can know that God is, by means of His manifold revelations, both in nature and through the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.
2. The entire material Universe was specially created by this Almighty God in 6 days of approximately 24-hours each, as revealed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11.
3. Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth.
Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate that many of the Earth’s features must be viewed in light of a universal, catastrophic flood (to wit: the Noachian deluge as expressed in Genesis 6-8).
4 All compromising theories such as theistic evolution, progressive creationism, threshold evolution, the gap theory, the modified gap theory, the day-age theory, the non-world view, etc., shall be denied and opposed as patently false.

There are a few more, but you get the picture. Here, a couple of snippets of the bios of the authors:

Brad Harrub

Brad Harrub holds an earned B.S. degree in biology from Kentucky Wesleyan College, and an earned Ph.D. in neurobiology and anatomy from the College of Medicine at the University of Tennessee in Memphis. He is the co-author of The Truth about Human Origins and Investigating Christian Evidences (an anti-evolution book - Dr G), as well as several tracts on biblical and/or scientific topics. He also is a featured writer for numerous religious journals, and a popular speaker on the topic of Christian evidences at lectureships, youth rallies, etc.

Dave Miller

Dave Miller is a graduate of Lubbock Christian University, where he earned a B.A. degree in speech and Bible. He earned his M.A. degree in speech communication from Texas Tech University, and his M.Th. and M.A.R. from the Harding Graduate School of Religion. From 1979 to 1989, he was the pulpit minister for various congregations of the churches of Christ, and from 1992-2002 served as the Director of the Brown Trail School of Preaching in Bedford, Texas. Additionally, from 1989 to 2003 he served as the host of “The Truth in Love” television program supported by churches of Christ nationwide. etc etc..

Nope no agenda there!

BUT THERE IS MORE!! And more importantly, this is the crux. The study they quote and I would suggest every homo-bashers dream:
Cameron, Paul, William L. Playfair, and Stephen Wellum (1993), “The Homosexual Lifespan,” paper presented at Eastern Psychological Association, April 17.

But let's take a closer look at this study:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html

Snippets:

Their conclusion – that homosexual men and women have a shorter life span than heterosexual men and women – provides a textbook example of the perils of using data from a convenience sample to generalize to an entire population.

Flaws in the study. The sample group did not include:

gay men and lesbians who were not involved in the gay community

gay men and lesbians who were in the closet about their sexual orientation

gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family didn't want their homosexuality to be known

gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family simply didn't think of sending an obituary to a gay community newspaper

gay men and lesbians whose loved ones did not write an obituary for some other reason (e.g., they were too grief stricken)

By restricting their analysis to obituaries in gay newspapers, however, the Cameron group systematically excluded them from the sample.

From their survey data, the Cameron group has claimed to know the number of gay men and lesbians in the population. If we believed their numbers, we would set the ratio of gay men-to-lesbians at about 1.6-to-1 (or approximately 2.6-to-1 if bisexuals are omitted). But the ratio of gay male-to-lesbian obituaries in the Cameron group's study is quite different – approximately 6-to-1 if AIDS and violent deaths are excluded, 32-to-1 if they are included.

Thus, at least one data set has to be wrong.


Conclusion Obituaries in gay community newspapers do not provide a representative sampling of the community. This is evident in the fact that only only 2% of the Cameron group's obituaries were for lesbians. .

Postscript In a 1997 column in the Weekly Standard, former Secretary of Education William Bennett referred to the findings of Cameron et al.'s obituary study, although he did not cite Cameron by name. He again referred to Cameron's conclusion about the truncated life span of homosexuals in an appearance on ABC's "This Week" program.
In 1998, after Andrew Sullivan wrote an article challenging the statistic, Bennett wrote in a letter to the New Republic (1998, February 23, page 4): "Given what I now know, I believe there are flaws with Paul Cameron's study. One cannot extrapolate from his methodology and say that the average male homosexual life span is 43 years."

Another link dissing the methodology of the study:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,009/000,008.htm

PALE!! Nice try fella...better luck next time...

 

[mattskramer]

if i say god exists god exists.....what you say matters not to my beliefs

if i say gay marriage is wrong.....what you say matters not to my opinion

Vice versa. The same applies to me, if I say god does not exist...what you say matters not to my beliefs. If I say gay marriage is okay...what you say matters not to my opinion. I guess that we have no argument here.

 

[mattskramer]

Your argument is dishonest. The affect of homosexuality on society is quite obvious. First, they quietly came out of the closet. Then they started making small demands. Now, they want complete legitimacy for what is at the crux of the entire argument ... aberrant behavior.

It affects my life when a dishonest agenda is forcing something unnatural and obscene onto my children as being as legitimate as heterosexuality. Common sense and logic are being thrown out the window for yet another episode of the left attempting to force by law what they cannot gain by popular support ... the tyranny of the minority

What are the affects of homosexuality, in and of itself, on society? Is it that gays “came out of the closet”. So? Good for them. What demand is this thing call homosexuality making? Individuals make demands and there are many different individual gay people.

Define Complete legitimacy. Do gays want everyone to think that it is okay to be gay. That will never happen no matter how many laws are passed. After these many years of desegregation, people still think that Blacks and Whites should stay apart.

Define Dishonest agenda. How can an agenda be dishonest? Individuals are dishonest. An agenda is merely a list or program of things to be done or considered. Whether or not gay marriage is allowed, no one will be forcing your children to believe that gay marriage is legitimate. Do you think that elective abortions are legitimate? They are legal. Just because government recognizes something as legal does not mean that everyone must consider it to be legitimate. You are criticizing people for throwing out logic. You are one to speak. LOL. Now try to put together some grammatically correct, clear, and logical statements.

Not to mention the billions in Tax payer dollars being spent to cure diseases that could be prevented if anyone bothered to actually listen to what society has always taught.

(Sigh) Avatar4321 – People often impact other people directly or indirectly. Allowing gay couples to be married would impact heterosexuals very little, if at all. By the way, it has not been established that allowing gays to get married will result in an increase of disease.

Finally, even if we assume that gay marriage increases the degree to which a society is unhealthy, the degree to which we want to restrict activities or conditions for the sake of a healthy society is relative. If we really want to increase societal health, let’s outlaw cigarettes and alcohol. Let’s go further and outlaw “junk food”. Let’s reduce the speed limit to 50 miles-per-hour. There is so much that we can do. Do people have a right to smoke and drive fast cars anyway? Are such activities “normal”? Do they subscribe to common sense and logic? They sure seem like unhealthy and dangerous activities to me.

 

[cslaughlin13]

WOW DR. GRUMP: That was very in depth. I didn't even scratch the surface compared to your thread. GREAT JOB.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What are the affects of homosexuality, in and of itself, on society? Is it that gays “came out of the closet”. So? Good for them. What demand is this thing call homosexuality making? Individuals make demands and there are many different individual gay people.

mattskramer, I think you are being quite shortsighted and have a rather closed mind on what the effects of gay marriage on society will be.

First, it will have the enormous effect of making people think marriage is less about having children and more about affirming alternative lifestyles. Parenting will take a back seat.

Second, it will have the effect of opening the door to many other alternative lifestyles. Why should gays be the only weird ones to marry?

 

[mattskramer]

mattskramer, I think you are being quite shortsighted and have a rather closed mind on what the effects of gay marriage on society will be.

First, it will have the enormous effect of making people think marriage is less about having children and more about affirming alternative lifestyles. Parenting will take a back seat.

Second, it will have the effect of opening the door to many other alternative lifestyles. Why should gays be the only weird ones to marry?

That seemed like a civil polite. Sorry if I sounded arrogant and insulting. I guess, when all is said and done, we agree to disagree. We all set limits as to what we think should be permitted and not permitted, even for consenting adults. We allow people to do things that are unhealthy. We don’t allow people to do things that some people would consider to be less risky.

If gay marriage is allowed I really doubt that gays will get married for the sole purpose of “rubbing it in your face” and affirm their life style. People will get married to profess a commitment to each other, receive equal access to benefits that married heterosexual couples get, and face up to the responsibilities. If and when gay marriage is allowed, I even doubt that a large number of gays would get married. After all, the number of gay people is supposedly very small and not all of those gay people would get married. So they can’t have children. People, seeing some childless families, may decide not to raise children. The choice will be up to each individual or family. I don’t see the harm in a couple’s choice not to have children.

No. I really doubt that the domino effect is that popular a phenomenon. Does cigarette smoking encourage people to take marijuana? If, after quite some time has passed, there is a strong push to allow people to marry dogs or to have polygamous relationships legalized, it will be brought before the people, the judicial and legislative establishment, and be debated. Society will cross that bridge when it gets to it.

 

[Avatar4321]

That seemed like a civil polite. Sorry if I sounded arrogant and insulting. I guess, when all is said and done, we agree to disagree. We all set limits as to what we think should be permitted and not permitted, even for consenting adults. We allow people to do things that are unhealthy. We don’t allow people to do things that some people would consider to be less risky.

If gay marriage is allowed I really doubt that gays will get married for the sole purpose of “rubbing it in your face” and affirm their life style. People will get married to profess a commitment to each other, receive equal access to benefits that married heterosexual couples get, and face up to the responsibilities. If and when gay marriage is allowed, I even doubt that a large number of gays would get married. After all, the number of gay people is supposedly very small and not all of those gay people would get married. So they can’t have children. People, seeing some childless families, may decide not to raise children. The choice will be up to each individual or family. I don’t see the harm in a couple’s choice not to have children.

Once again, homosexuals can already have most of the so called benefits they claim they dont have simply by seeing an attorney and legally arranging it. The main benefit hetrosexuals have that homosexuals cannot is the ability to procreate with each other. And legalizing marriage will not give them that ability. its not something the government can do.

In fact, the only reason the marital relationship is recognized by the government is because of its the best and healthiest way to raise children. What benefits would recognizing same sex marriage give society? Absolutely nothing.

No. I really doubt that the domino effect is that popular a phenomenon. Does cigarette smoking encourage people to take marijuana? If, after quite some time has passed, there is a strong push to allow people to marry dogs or to have polygamous relationships legalized, it will be brought before the people, the judicial and legislative establishment, and be debated. Society will cross that bridge when it gets to it.

You doubt the domino effect? Are you blind? We wouldnt even be having this conversation if that were true! In the 60s, when this so called sexual revolution began the people who were against it pointed to the domino effect. And the people on your side said oh it will never happen. But we have 4 decades of documented history that shows that everything that was predicted has happened.

The fact is society shouldnt have to cross that bridge. Society shouldnt even be near that bridge. But the problem is a bunch of selfish short sighted people keep driving us there for some reason. And thats a real shame since the bridge is likely to collapse with all of society pretty darn soon.

 

[cslaughlin13]

Avatar:
Actually, I would have to disagree with the fact that marriage is solely about having offspring. I know plenty of married couples that don't have children nor would they want to. Also, with divorce rate being around 50%, I could hardly see marriage as being about raising kids because believe me when I say that child support is a ***** (I know because my dad paid it to my mom for 14 years).

Also, gay marriage would actually benefit society in numerous ways:
-the benefit that the couples would be officially together
-The couples would have to pay more taxes to the government and therefore it would help the economy
-The couples wound gain the same rights that heterosexual couples have like entitlement of property, social security benefits

most homosexuals don't even care if it is termed "marriage"-civil unions are fine, we just want the rights

 

[Avatar4321]

Avatar:
Actually, I would have to disagree with the fact that marriage is solely about having offspring. I know plenty of married couples that don't have children nor would they want to. Also, with divorce rate being around 50%, I could hardly see marriage as being about raising kids because believe me when I say that child support is a ***** (I know because my dad paid it to my mom for 14 years).

Also, gay marriage would actually benefit society in numerous ways:
-the benefit that the couples would be officially together
-The couples would have to pay more taxes to the government and therefore it would help the economy
-The couples wound gain the same rights that heterosexual couples have like entitlement of property, social security benefits

most homosexuals don't even care if it is termed "marriage"-civil unions are fine, we just want the rights

Are you purposely trying to ignore what I write? I didnt say the only purpose of marriage is offspring. I said the only reason the government recognizes marriage is the government is benefited by the institution through the creation of offspring and is the best way to raise such offspring.

Also, on what planet does paying more taxes to the government help the economy? Certainly not this planet.

Last, they can already have the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples. Example, if you want your partner to be entitled to your property after you die all you have to do is write a will. Heck, if you wanted your dog to own your property after you die, you could legally do it you wrote a will. Same with the power to make medical decision. Give your partner the power of attorney and they can do the exact same thing a married couple can.

Not only would you be entitled to the same legal benefits if you actually used the current system, if something went wrong in the relationship, you wouldnt have to wait for a divorce. You could just go to your lawyer and have everything changed in a day.

 

[cslaughlin13]

but here is the question of the day: Why should we have to hire a lawyer just to entitle us to the sam beneifts when the government could give them to us.

 

[Abbey Normal]

but here is the question of the day: Why should we have to hire a lawyer just to entitle us to the sam beneifts when the government could give them to us.

Write your guy's name and list whatever you want to leave him on a piece of paper, before two witnesses, and have it notarized.

 

[Avatar4321]

but here is the question of the day: Why should we have to hire a lawyer just to entitle us to the sam beneifts when the government could give them to us.

Let's think about this:

Hiring a lawyer to write up an official document. a nominal fee, maybe $100.

Having a wedding - Thousands of dollars, heck you nees hundreds of dollars just to get the rings.

Now if you want to split you need to hire a lawyer again. but you have another possibly $100 cost versus a possibly year long and thousands of dollar in expenses only to loose half of what you own.

 

[mattskramer]

Once again, homosexuals can already have most of the so called benefits they claim they dont have simply by seeing an attorney and legally arranging it. The main benefit hetrosexuals have that homosexuals cannot is the ability to procreate with each other. And legalizing marriage will not give them that ability. its not something the government can do.

I read your previous message. I like those little disclaimers you include. Why not allow homosexuals all of the benefits that they can possibly have in comparison to heterosexual married couples? Why is it that homosexuals couples must go to an attorney to have some of their “rights” when a “civil union” certificate would make the resolution so much easier. I’m sorry but that is not enough. We basically agree that, aside from the physically impossible “benefit” of creating children, homosexuals can’t have the same access to the same benefits as that heterosexual married couples enjoy. They have to jump through hoops (i.e. hire a lawyer). A simple “civil union” certificate, if not a marriage license, could easily change that.

In fact, the only reason the marital relationship is recognized by the government is because of its the best and healthiest way to raise children. What benefits would recognizing same sex marriage give society? Absolutely nothing.

Where is it written that government only recognizes marital relationships because it is supposedly the best and healthiest way to raise children? Is there such a government declaration that I don’t know about? I already quoted the benefits that homosexual marriage would present for society. I’ll do so again later.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Let's think about this:

Hiring a lawyer to write up an official document. a nominal fee, maybe $100.

Having a wedding - Thousands of dollars, heck you nees hundreds of dollars just to get the rings.

Now if you want to split you need to hire a lawyer again. but you have another possibly $100 cost versus a possibly year long and thousands of dollar in expenses only to loose half of what you own.

So, I take it you won't be getting married, the extreme financial hassle that it is, and all.