Canadian Supreme Court approves same-sex marriage

[Shalla]

Link (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1102592743862_17?hub=topstories)

[DeV]

Cool.

[Tromp]

sounds like a the seinfeld episonde where Kramer wanted to watch Jerry's TV because he was taping Canadian Parliament on his. thought i'd thorw that in.

either way that is good news.

[Sweets]

I love living in a country where people of power WILL take responsibility for everyone and realize everyone is equal.

[Allycat]

Originally posted by Sweets
I love living in a country where people of power WILL take responsibility for everyone and realize everyone is equal.

Would be nice if the country I live in would.

-Ally

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Sweets
I love living in a country where people of power WILL take responsibility for everyone and realize everyone is equal. You'll be getting rid of handicapped ramps next, right? If everyone is equal, after all. ;)

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Sweets
I love living in a country where people of power WILL take responsibility for everyone and realize everyone is equal. You'll be getting rid of handicapped ramps next, right? If everyone is equal, after all. ;) They'd probably rather get rid of the hypocritical bible thumpers first. I'm sure they have a few running around in Canada.

[xtc]

If you read the article to the end you will notice the Conservative leader believes the Supreme Court’s decision to not comment on the Constitutionality of the traditional form of marriage a victory.

Canada's Constitution is a pandering piece of crap drafted by left leaning communist Pierre Trudeau who was also a closest homosexual. The FBI kept extensive files on Trudeau before he was elected Prime Minister in 68 because of his communist ties.

The majority of Canadians do not favour gay marriage. A Constitutional amendment is on its way. The current Liberal Government is drafting legislation to enact gay marriage; I don’t think they have the votes to pass it; I have spoken to some Liberal MPs who have told me they won’t vote for it. Some members of the socialist NDP won't vote for it. The Conservatives as a block won't vote for it, and many members of the separatist Bloc Quebecois party won't vote it.

This fight is far from over.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
:blah: :blah:

Quite the little McCarthyist aren't you.

What relevance is his sexuality or political belief?

[4a6c1]

w00t!

Yay for the Canadians.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
They'd probably rather get rid of the hypocritical bible thumpers first. I'm sure they have a few running around in Canada. Me and them both.

edit: Meaning I want to get rid of the ones here and elsewhere.

[Edited on 12-10-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[Toxicvixen]

Canada is gonna be a very popular place soon.

[Tromp]

Oh Canada....

[DeV]

Originally posted by Toxicvixen
Canada is gonna be a very popular place soon. Doubt it.
Gays get married every day in the US (they just aren't legally recognized by the government) but there are lots of ways to legalize a gay partnership here already.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
They'd probably rather get rid of the hypocritical bible thumpers first. I'm sure they have a few running around in Canada. Me and them both.
:rofl: Exactly.

[Ravenstorm]

The last numbers I saw show 57% of Canadians favor it while a second poll showed 71% though with a breakdown of 39% in favor of marriage and 32% preferring some sort of civil union.

But Canada isn't the only one.

Spain says it's also going to make same-sex marriage legal. South Africa is headed there. New Zealand just put civil unions into law. It's just a matter of time.

Raven

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
The last numbers I saw show 57% of Canadians favor it while a second poll showed 71% though with a breakdown of 39% in favor of marriage and 32% preferring some sort of civil union.

But Canada isn't the only one.

Spain says it's also going to make same-sex marriage legal. South Africa is headed there. New Zealand just put civil unions into law. It's just a matter of time.

Raven

But ... but Raven!

Pierre Trudeau was a closet homosexual with communist ties!

[Toxicvixen]

Doubt it.
Gays get married every day in the US (they just aren't legally recognized by the government) but there are lots of ways to legalize a gay partnership here already.


I figured as much. I bet though it would be nice for some probably to be able to have that piece of paper. Why won't our Goverment legalize it? They really have no good reason not to.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Sweets
I love living in a country where people of power WILL take responsibility for everyone and realize everyone is equal. You'll be getting rid of handicapped ramps next, right? If everyone is equal, after all. ;)

Or well all be expected to use ramps instead of stairs as our main mode of vertical movement. Being equal doesn't always mean taking the most negative approach.

Anyway I'm happy for the gay canadian community and wish them the best of luck in having this decision stand.

[Carl Spackler]

Does this mean gays are gonna move to canada?

[DeV]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler
Does this mean gays are gonna move to canada? This is a really stupid question.

[Carl Spackler]

Thanks for bashing my legitimate question. Fuck you my friend, enjoy your day.

[DeV]

How is that question legitimate when It's been stated that gays can already get married in the United States. And to answer: NO. Also, fuck you too and have a pleasant evening.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Carl Spackler
Does this mean gays are gonna move to canada?

:lol2:

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
How is that question legitimate when It's been stated that gays can already get married in the United States. And to answer: NO. Also, fuck you too and have a pleasant evening.

In how many states is it legal?

His question wasn't anymore stupid than others, stop being a bitch.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
[quote]

Quite the little McCarthyist aren't you.

What relevance is his sexuality or political belief?


I will ignore your insipid comments and answer your relevant question.

Trudeau wrote the Canadian Constitution in 1982 which is/was a completely unneeded document. He used the word sex rather than the word gender. Trudeau was a crafty bugger he knew he was opening the door to gay marriage by using that one simple word. He had an agenda, an agenda others who signed that Constitution had no idea he had. If it had been known his Constitution never would have been and Confederation of 1867 would have still been the defining document in Canada.

So his sexuality is and was very relevant.

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by xtc]

[imported_Kranar]

Yes...

Canada's constitution is all a gay conspiracy.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Kranar
Yes...

Canada's constitution is all a gay conspiracy.

If you read the Constitution you will see it is quite different from the US Constitution. I am not saying that it was Trudeau's sole purpose in writing it. However he was crafty and sneaky man who used specific language to further his agenda. You may recall that it was first a court case that decided it was unconstitutional in Canada to deny gay marriage.

So the Constitution drafted by Trudeau is very relevant to this discussion. As is the man who wrote it.

[Drinin]

I don't really see the big deal. Gay marriage is legal yes, but that doesn't mean that any church has to perform the marriage.

-In a landmark opinion, Canada's Supreme Court said Thursday that proposed legislation allowing gay marriage is constitutional, but the government cannot force religious officials to perform unions against their beliefs.

Sure, someone could found a church of some kind that will perform the marriages, but I do not think that any major religion will be performing loads of marriages to same sex couples. Personally, I could care less if gay people want to get together, I don't see the big deal. They have every right to being happy as the next guy. I do have a problem with using the term marriage, but I'll refrain from getting into that.

[Tsa`ah]

Let me rephrase that ....

Quite the little McCarthyist/conspiracy theorist aren't you.

[Shalla]

Originally posted by Drinin
I do have a problem with using the term marriage, but I'll refrain from getting into that.

Why do you have a problem with them using that term or word? Do you have a patent for that?

[Skeeter]

:popcorn2:

Straight marriage now, straight marriage forevah!

- Arkans

[Darnell]

I can't believe a thread about Canada has gone this far and nobody has said "A-boot" "eh?" "hoser" "oot" or mentioned missing teeth.....dammit, I guess I just did

D
"In all seriousness, it's Canada, who cares? Little sister is just experimenting"

[xtc]

Originally posted by Darnell
I can't believe a thread about Canada has gone this far and nobody has said "A-boot" "eh?" "hoser" "oot" or mentioned missing teeth.....dammit, I guess I just did

D
"In all seriousness, it's Canada, who cares? Little sister is just experimenting"

Another genius weighs in with an opinion

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
How is that question legitimate when It's been stated that gays can already get married in the United States. And to answer: NO. Also, fuck you too and have a pleasant evening.

In how many states is it legal?

His question wasn't anymore stupid than others, stop being a bitch. How about you stop acting like your his boyfriend and fuck off. Who in their right mind is going to move to Canada just because they're considering legalizing gay marriage.

Here's a tip: A closed mouth gathers no foot.

[HarmNone]

I'm glad to see Canada, as a nation, take responsibility for all of its citizenship, not just part of its citizenship. In my opinion, it is not the provence of the government to make law such that it denies basic freedoms to its people based on sexual preference.

If gay people wish to marry, they should not be precluded from doing so by national law. That said, if a given church or religious group chooses not to allow the marriage of gay people within its structure, that should remain their right. To me, that is freedom.

Canadians should be proud of their government for making the fair choice.

[Sweets]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Sweets
I love living in a country where people of power WILL take responsibility for everyone and realize everyone is equal. You'll be getting rid of handicapped ramps next, right? If everyone is equal, after all. ;)

That response made me laugh out loud. It's arguments like these that make the human race appear stupid.:lol:

[Jazuela]

Marriage and legally recognized partnerships are different things.

Anyone can "get married" to anyone in the USA, if they can find someone to perform the ceremony. Currently however, it is only legally binding if it fits within certain criteria (example, you cannot be legally wed to your own blood-sibling. Brother and sister could "get married" if they really wanted to and found someone willing (and dumb enough) to perform the ceremony. But it won't mean diddly squat in the eyes of the law).

Gay partnerships are a different matter entirely. Partners have the option of incorporating. It isn't a marriage, it isn't even a civil union. But it can protect the financial interests of the couple better than not incorporating. No, it won't let the partner visit if their significant other is in the hospital - that is reserved for "family members" and the law doesn't recognize a significant other of a homosexual relationship to be family. But in terms of estates and wills, it can make the difference between inheriting the "other half" of the corporation or losing it to some third cousin no one liked, simply on the merit that he's the only blood-relative left.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I am against gay marriages myself. I hesitate to state that here, what with so many lesbians, homosexuals and bi-sexuals... but I have. Most of my opinion is based on my image of what a marriage entails -- I think of it as the gateway to having children and raising a family.

I just don't think a same sex couple can raise a child as well as your standard heterosexual couple. Now, before you all start bashing me, don't think I'm not aware there are bad hetero parents. I'm talking generalizations here -- a straight boy raised by lesbian mothers won't have the same raport with his parents as one with m/f parents. That's where my objection comes into play.

And for the record, I'm not a homophobe, I don't think there is something wrong with homosexuals, and I don't treat them any differently than I do anyone else. My objection is the whole parenting thing (which I equate to marriage). Give gay couples the same rights as anyone else, I just don't think they are good parents (in general).

Hope that makes sense, not trying to offend anyone.

You know what fuck it all. Why don't I get the rights of married people here in america, where are my tax breaks? Im being discriminated against just because I am single. OH THE HUMANITY!!!

[Tsa`ah]

Tax breaks for married people?

Umm ... where? Maybe on the state level elsewhere, federal taxes? Pfft. Right.

[xtc]

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein is calling for a Referendum on the issue. It seems like the most democratic way of settling the issue.

Story Here (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1102683323055_177?hub=topstories)



[Edited on 12-11-2004 by xtc]

[DeV]

Interracial marriage took over 50 years to resolve, with it being legal in some states, illegal in others up until recently, 2000 (Alabama) and a patchwork of different legal decisions over whether any given state had to recognize an interracial marriage from another one. Opponents used many of the same arguments we see being generated for the debate against gay marriage. We see how the fight for interracial marriage has played out.

I'm expecting the same type of fight for gay marriage even though 50 years seems like a long time in this age. With a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage simply a non-starter, I'm betting you'll see gay marriage legal in a majority of states within 20 years, and all of them within 30. And those are very conservative estimates.

Marriage has many implications beyond child rearing and parenting for those who use the argument that gays and lesbians can't properly raise a child therefore should not be allowed to marry.

By this logic you should lose custody if you're not married, divorced, or heaven-forbid, one parent should die and you are left to raise children on your own.

By taking that stance, heterosexual couples who fail to reproduce should have their marriage dissolved? Heterosexual couples who are beyond child-bearing age should not be allowed to marry? Heterosexual couples who are infertile should not be allowed to marry? (I suppose there could be a loophole that would permit the marriage if and only if they all adopted children.)

[xtc]

Race is a biological issue. I understand that many people who fought in the civil rights movement aren’t ecstatic about the comparison with gay marriage.

Gay marriage isn’t necessary to remove barriers, that married people enjoy, that gay couples don’t i.e. inheritance issues, hospital visitation etc. To a large extent most of these barriers have been removed in Canada before the introduction of gay marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution that states adopted. I doubt very much that the United States will rush to legalise gay marriage.

[Tsa`ah]

I disagree whole heartedly.

Legal recognition of gay unions, either by marriage or civil means, paves the road for anti-discriminatory laws. You can get fired for being gay in almost every state and not have a legal leg to stand on or any recourse to take.

Consider this the first step.

[Brattt8525]

I think that it is the individuals who make good/bad parents. Not your sexual choices, I have seen alot of messed up kids that had a "normal" family structure of one male and one female for parents. Making a general statement that gays aren't good parent structures is plain wrong.

Now sadly they may have issues at school because they have two daddies, or two mommies. Other then that issue, I still stand on my opening point. I think that legalizing marriage/union between same sex people may hopefully strengthen what seems to be a failing commitment status among gays. It is simply too easy to walk away and hook up with someone else. If they had to actually go through a legal process to divorce said partner, maybe they would try harder at working on a life commitment.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I disagree whole heartedly.

Legal recognition of gay unions, either by marriage or civil means, paves the road for anti-discriminatory laws. You can get fired for being gay in almost every state and not have a legal leg to stand on or any recourse to take.

Consider this the first step.

In Canada you can't be fired for being gay. Many rights and privileges afford straight people and couples have been extended to gay people. Inheritance issues, same sex benefits for gay partners, pensions etc.

The gay marriage issue here, has been the last step, not the first.

[DeV]

50 years is not a rush. It's a long hard fight.

I have family members who fought in the civil rights movement who will tell you otherwise regarding the comparisons. I understand that many who fought in the movement have issues with the comparisons but I'm sorry to say, they are far to similiar and I'm going off of first hand knowledge.

[Shalla]

In my opinion, If you are against gay marriages, I don't think anybody is forcing you to marry one. With the government legalizing gay marriage is simply giving you an option, or if you are gay, and a citizen of your country, giving you every right a heterosexual couple have. Why in the world would you prevent a fellow citizen to have that?

As for parenting, it's a prejudiced opinion to generalize gay people unfit to raise a child. These days kids spend more time in school or outside that the only thing a parent could do is provide for them. IF anything.. a gay couple would have more love to give to a child, simply because they could not have, or hard to get their own to begin with. Most parents these days force their opinions on their kids.. that drive their kids away.. instead of listening to their own voice, opinion and individuality.

If you are against gay marriages.. Don't marry one. Don't try to rationalize your prejudiced opinion by saying it's about the kids.. If it has nothing to do with religion.. then it is equivalent to "I have more rights than you do, and I would damn you to hell if you would fight for us to be equal".

[Chadj]

My two cents;

Go fuck yourself if you are against it. Why do you care if two people of the same sex want to marry? It does not affect you, your religion, your life, your paycheck, your taxes etc. Maybe it's against your religion, but if you are pushing your beliefs on to others, you should shut the hell up.

Just my opinion.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Lady Shalla
In my opinion, If you are against gay marriages, I don't think anybody is forcing you to marry one. With the government legalizing gay marriage is simply giving you an option, or if you are gay, and a citizen of your country, giving you every right a heterosexual couple have. Why in the world would you prevent a fellow citizen to have that?

As for parenting, it's a prejudiced opinion to generalize gay people unfit to raise a child. These days kids spend more time in school or outside that the only thing a parent could do is provide for them. IF anything.. a gay couple would have more love to give to a child, simply because they could not have, or hard to get their own to begin with. Most parents these days force their opinions on their kids.. that drive their kids away.. instead of listening to their own voice, opinion and individuality.

If you are against gay marriages.. Don't marry one. Don't try to rationalize your prejudiced opinion by saying it's about the kids.. If it has nothing to do with religion.. then it is equivalent to "I have more rights than you do, and I would damn you to hell if you would fight for us to be equal".

Every society has the right of self determination. The tail shouldn't wag the dog. It is the majority that decides what happens in a democracy. If it is the other way around, you don’t have a democracy.

Every child needs both a mother and a father; nature works a certain way for a reason. The fact that not all children are raised this way doesn’t disprove the rule.

An issue like this needs to be put to a referendum and the question needs to be clear and unambiguous. That way it is handled democratically.

[Brattt8525]

Every child needs both a mother and a father; nature works a certain way for a reason. The fact that not all children are raised this way doesn’t disprove the rule.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So what are you saying? That because people who are of the same sex, can't have/raise children? Rules my ass, siring or giving birth to a child does not give you some special consideration over anyone else. Big deal you made a baby, nature was on your side, now its daddy can molest it while the mother tends to the bruises on her body from the daddy kicking the shit out of her.

Statistically speaking, I am interested to know how many children are beaten and sexually abused by their natural parents, you know, those great people who are better parents then same sex couples. Having the right parts to join and make a baby, and having both those parents in the home DO NOT make for a better life for the child. If you think it does, you are sadly mistaken.

[Tsa`ah]

A democracy that discriminates against race, religion, sexual preference, physical attributes/deficiencies, or political view is not much of a democracy. Refusing equal rights to a minority is not democratic at all.

You believe that a child needs a mother and a father, male and female, yet in a vast number of cases, it's one or the other and not both. Again, your belief, and as an individual you are entitled to it. However, you can't claim it is "natural" simply because nature is against you in this argument in a vast majority of examples.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Brattt8525
Every child needs both a mother and a father; nature works a certain way for a reason. The fact that not all children are raised this way doesn’t disprove the rule.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So what are you saying? That because people who are of the same sex, can't have/raise children? Rules my ass, siring or giving birth to a child does not give you some special consideration over anyone else. Big deal you made a baby, nature was on your side, now its daddy can molest it while the mother tends to the bruises on her body from the daddy kicking the shit out of her.

Statistically speaking, I am interested to know how many children are beaten and sexually abused by their natural parents, you know, those great people who are better parents then same sex couples. Having the right parts to join and make a baby, and having both those parents in the home DO NOT make for a better life for the child. If you think it does, you are sadly mistaken.

I can see that I am in the minority on this board on this issue.

Yes studies have proven that children function best when raised both a mother and a father. The fact that a small % of children are treated poorly by biological parents doesn't disprove the rule. If nature had wanted 2 men to be able to have children it would be reality. Many species procreate differently. A child's right to a full, normal, functional upbringing shouldn't be usurped by the agenda of the few.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
A democracy that discriminates against race, religion, sexual preference, physical attributes/deficiencies, or political view is not much of a democracy. Refusing equal rights to a minority is not democratic at all.

You believe that a child needs a mother and a father, male and female, yet in a vast number of cases, it's one or the other and not both. Again, your belief, and as an individual you are entitled to it. However, you can't claim it is "natural" simply because nature is against you in this argument in a vast majority of examples.

You see it as a civil rights issue I do not. Civil rights in most cases are based on biological issues. Race we are born with, religion we inherit from our parents.

I think nature is on my side in this argument.

Media in North America has ignored studies done in Europe that have found that gay marriage has weakened a society built on traditional marriage and has had negative consequences on children.

“there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in the Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favor of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation."

"In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices' has not had serious social consequences....”

[Tsa`ah]

Again you cite nature as if you know the intent of nature. Perhaps you should study up a bit more.

The majority of life forms that procreate do not raise their off-spring.

Then we move on to those that procreate and the mother raises the off-spring.

Then we move on to those that procreate and the off-spring are raised in a community setting with one dominant male.

Then we move on to those that procreate and the off-spring are raised by a mother and a father.

Then we move on to those that procreate and the off-spring are raised by the father.

Each of groups listed above are in a general order, from the largest group to the smallest group.

You are not nature or god; therefore you are not privy to intent, if intent even exists.

One could argue that the way human children are raised is "un-natural".

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by xtc
Yes studies have proven that children function best when raised both a mother and a father.

The studies you quote were looking at the question of whether or not two parents are better than one. Yes, the studies found that it is better for a child to be raised by a mother and father instead of a single mother or father.

Those studies do not address whether or not two parents of the same gender can raise a child as well as an opposite sex couple.

Those studies however which have looked into the question, studies performed by reputable medical associations such as the AMA, have found no difference. Actually, they have found one difference: children raised by same sex couples end up more tolerant of other people in general. So you can say that same sex couples are better at parenting.

Meanwhile, the Religious Reich - who would like nothing better than to have a single shred of proof to back up their bigotry - is reduced to standing there picking at the methodology of the studies because it's the best they can do. They're unable to provide any actual scientific facts that wouldn't be laughed at to support their position.

So if you think that you aren't a homophobe or some such because you have gay friends and believe they shouldn't be fired based on their sexuality but still think they shouldn't be able to marry because they cant' be good parents... Well, you might not be a raging bigot burning pink crosses on someone's lawn but I have to tell you: yes, you are prejudiced.

You might think gays can't make good parents but you also might think the earth is flat. Your beliefs don't make it true.

Raven

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by xtc
Yes studies have proven that children function best when raised both a mother and a father.

The studies you quote were looking at the question of whether or not two parents are better than one. Yes, the studies found that it is better for a child to be raised by a mother and father instead of a single mother or father.

Those studies do not address whether or not two parents of the same gender can raise a child as well as an opposite sex couple.

Those studies however which have looked into the question, studies performed by reputable medical associations such as the AMA, have found no difference. Actually, they have found one difference: children raised by same sex couples end up more tolerant of other people in general. So you can say that same sex couples are better at parenting.

Meanwhile, the Religious Reich - who would like nothing better than to have a single shred of proof to back up their bigotry - is reduced to standing there picking at the methodology of the studies because it's the best they can do. They're unable to provide any actual scientific facts that wouldn't be laughed at to support their position.

So if you think that you aren't a homophobe or some such because you have gay friends and believe they shouldn't be fired based on their sexuality but still think they shouldn't be able to marry because they cant' be good parents... Well, you might not be a raging bigot burning pink crosses on someone's lawn but I have to tell you: yes, you are prejudiced.

You might think gays can't make good parents but you also might think the earth is flat. Your beliefs don't make it true.

Raven

Neither do your beliefs make it true either.

The studies specifically looked at children being raised by a mother and a father.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Again you cite nature as if you know the intent of nature. Perhaps you should study up a bit more.

The majority of life forms that procreate do not raise their off-spring.

Then we move on to those that procreate and the mother raises the off-spring.

Then we move on to those that procreate and the off-spring are raised in a community setting with one dominant male.

Then we move on to those that procreate and the off-spring are raised by a mother and a father.

Then we move on to those that procreate and the off-spring are raised by the father.

Each of groups listed above are in a general order, from the largest group to the smallest group.

You are not nature or god; therefore you are not privy to intent, if intent even exists.

One could argue that the way human children are raised is "un-natural".

Your arguments are a stretch in my opinion. One could argue that the earth is flat.

Since your category A is populated by micro-organisms I wouldn't say it is an applicable argument.

In none of the above examples do two homosexual parents of the same sex raise the off-spring.

I have never mentioned God in any of my arguments. What I do know about nature is that two men can not produce a child neither can two women. Nature is a wonderful, beautiful, and intricate thing. I choose to trust nature rather than the latest political fad.

[DeV]

Originally posted by xtc
In none of the above examples do two homosexual parents of the same sex raise the off-spring.

What I do know about nature is that two men can not produce a child neither can two women. Nature is a wonderful, beautiful, and intricate thing. I choose to trust nature rather than the latest political fad. And this just makes me wonder how you feel about a heterosexual couple who cannot have children on their own because of nature.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by xtc
In none of the above examples do two homosexual parents of the same sex raise the off-spring.

Then perhaps you should do some basic research about gay birds who adopt (steal) eggs and raise the chicks together.

Or the lesbian bird couples who only mate to get their eggs fertilized then raise their chicks.

It's quite "natural". Usual? No. But quite natural.

Raven

I still like the classic definination marriage. Has worked for thousands of years. Maybe that will change one day, but for now.. eh.

- Arkans

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
So if you think that you aren't a homophobe or some such because you have gay friends and believe they shouldn't be fired based on their sexuality but still think they shouldn't be able to marry because they cant' be good parents... Well, you might not be a raging bigot burning pink crosses on someone's lawn but I have to tell you: yes, you are prejudiced.


Raven

I was waiting for someone to call me a homophobe or a bigot. Slander is so much more effective than rational thought. So what do you call homosexuals who are against gay marriage? Are they bigots and homophobes as well. How about John McKellar President of H.O.P.E. (Homosexuals Against Pride Extremism)? Is he a bigot and homophobe too?

John McKellar article here (http://www.ctfamily.org/editorial28.html)

See this is understandable, but legislation to make pot OTC is not.

Just my $0.02

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Chadj
but if you are pushing your beliefs on to others, you should shut the hell up.So you're ok with anarchy, Chadj? You wouldn't want anyone's beliefs pushed on anyone, after all.

Let's not go overboard here, folks. We get it, you want all the benefits straight folks get naturally. Apparently the Canadians took care of that, why not do what they did?

[Chadj]

Anarchy has nothing to do with pushing beliefs on someone.

If (as has happened before), someone comes up and starts telling me I'm going to hell because I'm not part of their religion, then starts spewing a load of bullshit out of their mouth, they'll have to shut the fuck up or get kicked in the teeth.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Chadj
Anarchy has nothing to do with pushing beliefs on someone.What do you see laws as, then? To me, it's pretty clear they're a summary of what people believe is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
See this is understandable, but legislation to make pot OTC is not.

Just my $0.02

Stanley, darlin'...can you please keep your $0.02 cents on topic? ;)

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
So if you think that you aren't a homophobe or some such because you have gay friends and believe they shouldn't be fired based on their sexuality but still think they shouldn't be able to marry because they cant' be good parents... Well, you might not be a raging bigot burning pink crosses on someone's lawn but I have to tell you: yes, you are prejudiced.


Raven

I was waiting for someone to call me a homophobe or a bigot. Slander is so much more effective than rational thought. So what do you call homosexuals who are against gay marriage? Are they bigots and homophobes as well. How about John McKellar President of H.O.P.E. (Homosexuals Against Pride Extremism)? Is he a bigot and homophobe too?

John McKellar article here (http://www.ctfamily.org/editorial28.html)

You really do have a problem with reading comprehension don't you? Go read the part I italicized and bold-faced. I'll wait...

Done? Good. Know what? That isn't slander. If you have an opinion of something that's based not on fact but only on belief and is indeed contradicted by facts as they come out but still maintain your correctness then that is by definition prejudice. You do know the root of the word is pre-judging right? And yes, if someone who is gay can be just as prejudiced against his fellow gays as anyone else.

Not only that but there are many gay people who don't want to fit into mainstream society. They take pride in being on the fringes. Being unable to marry gives them license to sleep around: hey, you won't let me marry and condemn me for not being monogamous?

They take the term counter-culture to heart. They reject mainstream values and hold them in contempt. So naturally, why should any gay want them? After all, they're just buying into the whole myth of straight values being "right".

They don't however speak for all gays who do want to have the option open to them. See, that's what's nice about freedom and choices. if you want to do something, you can but if you don't, no one's going to force it on you.

That whole little essay reminds me of a little boy acting out because that's what's expected of him. Well, they think I'm a trouble maker so I'm going to BE a trouble maker! I'm going to be promiscuous and not accept responsibility because they say I'm promiscuous and unable to take responsibility.

Fine, let him be. And let those who disagree with him - of which there are many - have the option to live as they want to. He might not be a fit parent. Reading his tripe, he is most likely correct. But it's not his being gay that the cause of that. It's his beliefs and attitudes.

Raven

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Chadj
Anarchy has nothing to do with pushing beliefs on someone.What do you see laws as, then? To me, it's pretty clear they're a summary of what people believe is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

Anarchy is, by definition, the polar opposite of lawfulness.

[DeV]

Originally posted by xtc
So what do you call homosexuals who are against gay marriage? Are they bigots and homophobes as well. How about John McKellar President of H.O.P.E. (Homosexuals Against Pride Extremism)? Is he a bigot and homophobe too?

John McKellar article here (http://www.ctfamily.org/editorial28.html) Oh, you mean this guy: www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1998/073098/news6.html (http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1998/073098/news6.html)
He frequently refers to himself as a [insert gay explicitive here] and denounces all gay activists, except for himself and his own organization of course.

[Ravenstorm]

Ah, a reparative therapy advocate. That does explain a lot. Yes, a bigot.

Raven

Maybe I missed it someplace, but what is so wrong with civil unions for gays?

- Arkans

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Anarchy is, by definition, the polar opposite of lawfulness. That's what I thought. The point of my question was to determine how Chadj could not be an anarchist, if he doesn't believe in laws.

[HarmNone]

Chadj did not, at any time, say that he did not believe in laws. He said that he did not believe in one individual ("If YOU are trying to..." ) pressing his/her beliefs on others. At least, that's what I read him to say. There is a big difference, as I see it, between an individual's beliefs and the law of the land.

*Dern smilies!*

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by HarmNone]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Arkans
Maybe I missed it someplace, but what is so wrong with civil unions for gays

If they automatically provided every benefit and responsibility that marriage does? Not much. I personally don't care much about what it's called. I say let every marriage as it's defined now be labeled a civil union and leave the term marriage for the religious ceremony which the individual church can or cannot give its blessing to as its dogma dictates.

Raven

The problem of course is that so many who also are against marriage are against civil unions.

Raven

[Ravenstorm]

Slightly off topic, but if anyone's interested:

Here's some information on so-called conversion therapy. (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html)

And the APA's stance on it. (http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose~1.cfm)

Raven

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by Ravenstorm]

I guess I am a silly man of semantics. I do not mind gays getting civil unions and getting benifits that marriages provide.

I do not support gays getting something called marriage.

There damn better be laws protecting churches and the like that prevent them getting nailed by discrimination law suits for refusing to marry gays.

Other than that, I'm fine, as long as the general public agrees.

- Arkans

[Chadj]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Chadj
Anarchy has nothing to do with pushing beliefs on someone.What do you see laws as, then? To me, it's pretty clear they're a summary of what people believe is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

I'm sure the majority of society believe's the majority of the laws that are mad, therefore, it is not pushing beliefs on anyone, but simply people sharing a common belief.

However, as Harmnone stated, Anarchy would be the absense of laws. I never said that. Don't put words into my mouth.

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by Chadj]

[HarmNone]

I've never seen even an inkling of thought that churches might be forced (or even coerced) to marry a gay couple. The argument, so far, has been that gay couples should be given the right to marry. Whether or not to marry gay couples would (and should) be a decision to be made by religious leaders.

HN, I know you arn't naive enough that someone down the road would try and sue a church for this and claim discrimination. That is how the system of laws works here in the United States. Remember the lady that spilled hot coffee on herself and sued? How about the fat kids that sued McDonald's?

No one ever thought such a case could happen, but it did. I want to protect the churches from any such possible attack. Nothing wrong with passing a law like that.

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Anyone can TRY to sue for anything, Arkans. That, however, is a matter of our fouled-up legal system, and has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage. I certainly agree that something should be done to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, but I firmly believe it should be done across the board, not just in relation to churches being sued.

I agree with you, HN. The thing is, something like that would need to pass before I would even consider supporting gay civil unions. My main fear is churches coming under attack by silly law suits.

- Arkans

[Shalla]

Anybody can file a law suit Arkans, it is up to the judge whether they have merit. Suing a church for their belief system does not constitute descrimination. Joining a religious order is your decision, and yours alone. You have the choice to leave if you do not agree with it. Unless it's a religious cult, and they have you brainwashed.

Once again, common sense thinking. Then again, you never know what skewed belief systems a judge may have.

Spilling coffee on yourself is also common sense as well. I do not want to take any chances. I don't see the problem in making churches immune to these types of lawsuits.

- Arkans

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Arkans
I don't see the problem in making churches immune to these types of lawsuits.

I doubt anyone does. The Canadian court specifically stated that churches would not be forced to marry same sex couples if it went against their religious beliefs.

On the other side of the issue though, the Religious Reich doesn't only want such assurances. They don't want gays to have any rights at all.

Raven

[HarmNone]

Churches are already subject to silly lawsuits, just like everybody else is, Arkans. Just put "suing church" into Google. You'll get a good look at the idiocy that abounds amongst our "peers".

Saying that churches should be made exempt from lawsuits is a very slippery slope, in my opinion. A church is an organization and, as such, is subject to the law of the land, just as is any other organization. To pick and choose who will, and who will not, be held accountable to the law is travelling down a very dangerous road.

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by HarmNone]

Listen, as a person from Massachusetts, gay marriage had made zero impact on my life. I just don't care what gays do with their life.

What I do care is if crazed judges side against the church. I also care if crazed people push for going after churches.

I never much understood the Religious Right. They seem more concerned with how a country should be run to serve them best. I think a nation should be run to best serve its self interest and its citizens. Go Nationalism!

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Hell, Arkans, I'd think anybody would be adamantly against crazed judges going after ANYBODY!

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Chadj
I'm sure the majority of society believe's the majority of the laws that are mad, therefore, it is not pushing beliefs on anyone, but simply people sharing a common belief.If that was the case, I don't understand how your original comment applies.

I just don't understand the idea that morality is ok unless it's religious. Usually, this is the part of the discussion where people roll their eyes at me, but I've got high hopes you'll break the mold, Chadj.

As for the anarchy thing: I misinterpreted your words. I thought you meant anyone telling anyone what to do is wrong. I didn't realize you meant a singular anyone.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Arkans
What I do care is if crazed judges side against the church. I also care if crazed people push for going after churches.

The law is quite clear already that it would be impossible to win such a case. The separation of church and state protects the churches more than it protects the state from church influence. Government can not force people to violate their religious beliefs.

This is why those who are Christian Scientists can not be forced to undergo medical treatment even if it would save their life. They can't even be forced to save their child's life with simple medical procedures.

Raven

Which is fine by me. If there are safe guards already in place, let's get the vote going for civil unions. Gays are citizens of our country, no?

- Arkans

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Heh, the following quotes are exactly why I rarely, if ever, post my personal opinion on anything of importance here. I have an honest opinion of this and don't mind rational debate. But taking my example, and blowing it up ridiculous retoric is stupid. Telling a heterosexual not to marry a homosexual as a recourse to my opinion is stupid. Telling me to fuck myself, because my opinion is different than yours, is stupid. Telling me I'm a homophobe, because I have legitimate concerns (opinion), is stupid.

Go back to your moronic debate. I'll throw in off color pot shots as needed to liven up the "debate".

PS - Reread what I said -- some of the posts after mine were interesting viewpoints, if you can get past the name calling and flames. I'm not "married" to my opinion, I actually consider that one of my strengths, the fact that I can change it when I see I'm wrong. I won't even try though, when it's the usual bullshit.

<By taking that stance, heterosexual couples who fail to reproduce should have their marriage dissolved? Heterosexual couples who are beyond child-bearing age should not be allowed to marry? Heterosexual couples who are infertile should not be allowed to marry? (I suppose there could be a loophole that would permit the marriage if and only if they all adopted children.)> DarkElfVold

<If you are against gay marriages.. Don't marry one. Don't try to rationalize your prejudiced opinion by saying it's about the kids.. If it has nothing to do with religion.. then it is equivalent to "I have more rights than you do, and I would damn you to hell if you would fight for us to be equal".> Shalla

<Go fuck yourself if you are against it. Why do you care if two people of the same sex want to marry? It does not affect you, your religion, your life, your paycheck, your taxes etc. Maybe it's against your religion, but if you are pushing your beliefs on to others, you should shut the hell up.> Chadj

<So if you think that you aren't a homophobe or some such because you have gay friends and believe they shouldn't be fired based on their sexuality but still think they shouldn't be able to marry because they cant' be good parents... Well, you might not be a raging bigot burning pink crosses on someone's lawn but I have to tell you: yes, you are prejudiced. > Ravenstorm

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Heh, the following quotes are exactly why I rarely, if ever, post my personal opinion on anything of importance here. I have an honest opinion of this and don't mind rational debate.
With the exception of Chadj (as if you should expect anything from him anyway), I see no problem with their responses. They all looked like genuine counters to your viewpoint. Just because you don't like hearing that you obviously DO have a problem with homosexuals, doesn't mean that their opinion is "irrational."


Go back to your moronic debate. I'll throw in off color pot shots as needed to liven up the "debate".
That's what you do best.

[Edited on 12-12-2004 by Snapp]

[HarmNone]

Heh. I get your drift, SHM. However, if I've learned one thing by reading these boards for all these years, it's to filter the wheat from the chaff when reading posts. If someone has something to say, but doesn't know how to say it without adding superfluous garbage, they still have something to say. Often, what they have to say is worth reading, despite the need to do some mental filtering. ;)

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Snapp
Just because you don't like hearing that you obviously DO have a problem with homosexuals, doesn't mean that their opinion is "irrational." I think he's miffed because he doesn't, in fact, have a problem with homosexuals. I know I get upset when people do the same thing to me.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Snapp
Just because you don't like hearing that you obviously DO have a problem with homosexuals, doesn't mean that their opinion is "irrational." I think he's miffed because he doesn't, in fact, have a problem with homosexuals. I know I get upset when people do the same thing to me.

But he does have a problem with an aspect of what might be considered, depending on who you ask, part of a homosexual lifestyle ie: them raising children together. That being said I don't think SHM is wrong for having this belief because well its his belief and he has every right to have it.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Snapp
Just because you don't like hearing that you obviously DO have a problem with homosexuals, doesn't mean that their opinion is "irrational." I think he's miffed because he doesn't, in fact, have a problem with homosexuals. I know I get upset when people do the same thing to me.

That's why a lot of people here don't bother saying anything. SHM was hesitant for good reason.

[Darnell]

Originally posted by xtc

Another genius weighs in with an opinion

Actually, I'm just messing around because some of you take this way too serious, but if you want my real non-sarcastic opinion, I really don't give a damn. In what way do two dudes or two women saying vows affect me in this country or any for that matter? I have more concerns when it comes to things such as people can be sent to war and die at 18, but have to be 21 to walk into a bar to legally drink or that some people are against gays in the military even though they can take a bullet just as well as someone who is straight. Perhaps I should just go back to my Xtra crispy, bling and gats so that you have one less genius running around. We all know humor has no place in such a "serious" place.

D
"Simmer down before you get smacked down"

[Ravenstorm]

One thing gay marriage opponents do - and to give them credit, they do it very well - is to change the argument and deceive the listeners. They also make gay marriage into a debate on gay parenting. And quite simply, it's a misdirection designed to do nothing but appeal to the fears of the listener. Beyond the fact that there's not a single shred of scientific evidence that same sex parents are in any way worse than straight ones, being against gay marriage harms children.

The fact is, gays already have children. They can adopt. They can have surrogates. They can have sperm donors. Or they can do it the old fashion way and have sex for the sake of a child. This isn't going to change. Gays have kids. Now perhaps people would like to make it illegal for anyone not heterosexual to raise a child but they should at least be honest enough to say that. But to oppose gay marriage? It doesn't help kids. It hurts them.

What effect does keeping gays from marrying have on a child of one of them? It makes certain that the child does not have two legal parents raising him. It makes certain that if his single legal parent dies, the state can take him away from the only other adult he loves who's raised him for the last ten years. It means if the other parent gets sick, the child has no right to visit him in the hospital. Or the reverse. Two people could raise this boy for ten years and be better the best parents in the world but as far as the law is concerned he only has one guardian. How is this helping the child? How is this in his best interests?

Someone who is against same sex marriage for the sake of the children, answer that please.

I expect total silence.

Raven

[Edited on 12-12-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Jazuela]

I appreciate SHM's response, because it wasn't offered out of anger, or hatred, or bigotry. But a prejudice doesn't mean that the person is bigoted. It could simply mean he's uninformed, or underinformed, or hasn't thought his ideas through clearly enough.

Everyone has prejudices, and anyone who claims otherwise is either lying to himself, or inhuman.

To address SHM's ideas on the subject (and it's already been addressed the way I thought of, but I'd like to repeat it):

What I read in your post, tells me that you feel the conventional male-father, female-mother is the ideal parenting situation. I am inclined to agree, assuming that both parents are responsible loving parents. Irresponsible parents come in all kinds, so we can toss that strawman out the window for now. I hear ya on that.

The problem lies on the exceptions made, rather than the rule. If the government was to sanction -only- male-father, female-mother parenting situations, then what happens to the widow or widower with a child? What happens with the divorced parent? What happens to someone who was single, is single, plans on remaining single, and has a child? Do we outlaw all these situations?

If we don't make -those- situations illegal, or subject to Child Welfare stepping in and placing the child in the home of a "conventional" parenting couple, then we cannot, and should not, make it illegal for same-sex parents to raise children.

This is why I feel the parenting issue is irrelevent to legal recognition of same-sex couples. Personally, it's kinda weird to me, to even think about two men walking out of a church with one carrying a bouquet and the other gazing lovingly into the other's eyes. It's just - weird. But just because it's weird to me, doesn't mean the law should step in and forbid it. And since it isn't hurting me, and is merely "weird" to me, I don't see why the government can't allow civil unions of same-gender couples, even if it's only for the express purpose of granting them the same inheritance and visitation rights and possible tax benefits (assuming there really were any of significance) as any other "married" couple in this country.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Interesting points. Funny how everything I read from Ravenstorm is an attack on me, while you say essentially the same thing and I can see the reason behind it.

[Brattt8525]

I think SHM was fair in his thoughts on the subject, he has his own set of values just like anyone else. The only problem with his first post IMHO was when he stated that traditional parenting of a man and woman were better then same sex parenting. That being said, it is how he feels, and as much as others believe different we should respect each others thoughts as well.

He could have posted a snide remark, and flamed, instead he was honest and I can appreciate that. Flaming him for his thoughts only shows a lack of respect for how he feels.

[HarmNone]

I think all of us, if we have a personal investment in an issue, tend to discuss that issue more vociferously than we might discuss an issue with which we are not personally involved. That might be why responses from different people, even if the responses essentially say the same things, affect us differently.

I don't think Ravenstorm's response was a personal attack on you, SHM. I think his response was more strongly stated because he, being more directly affected by this issue, is more invested in it. :)

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Arkans
I don't see the problem in making churches immune to these types of lawsuits.

I doubt anyone does. The Canadian court specifically stated that churches would not be forced to marry same sex couples if it went against their religious beliefs.

On the other side of the issue though, the Religious Reich doesn't only want such assurances. They don't want gays to have any rights at all.

Raven

When the Canadian Government passed their version of a defence of marriage act back in 1997-1999, that affirmed that marriage was only between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court of Canada was silent. They didn't come out and say such a law was against the Constitution.

I find courts to be subjective in their interpretation of the law. Today's Supreme Court says that Churches can't be forced to marry gay couples. Tomorrow’s may say differently. It is the thin edge of the wedge.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
So if you think that you aren't a homophobe or some such because you have gay friends and believe they shouldn't be fired based on their sexuality but still think they shouldn't be able to marry because they cant' be good parents... Well, you might not be a raging bigot burning pink crosses on someone's lawn but I have to tell you: yes, you are prejudiced.


Raven

I was waiting for someone to call me a homophobe or a bigot. Slander is so much more effective than rational thought. So what do you call homosexuals who are against gay marriage? Are they bigots and homophobes as well. How about John McKellar President of H.O.P.E. (Homosexuals Against Pride Extremism)? Is he a bigot and homophobe too?

John McKellar article here (http://www.ctfamily.org/editorial28.html)

You really do have a problem with reading comprehension don't you? Go read the part I italicized and bold-faced. I'll wait...

Done? Good. Know what? That isn't slander. If you have an opinion of something that's based not on fact but only on belief and is indeed contradicted by facts as they come out but still maintain your correctness then that is by definition prejudice. You do know the root of the word is pre-judging right? And yes, if someone who is gay can be just as prejudiced against his fellow gays as anyone else.

Not only that but there are many gay people who don't want to fit into mainstream society. They take pride in being on the fringes. Being unable to marry gives them license to sleep around: hey, you won't let me marry and condemn me for not being monogamous?

They take the term counter-culture to heart. They reject mainstream values and hold them in contempt. So naturally, why should any gay want them? After all, they're just buying into the whole myth of straight values being "right".

They don't however speak for all gays who do want to have the option open to them. See, that's what's nice about freedom and choices. if you want to do something, you can but if you don't, no one's going to force it on you.

That whole little essay reminds me of a little boy acting out because that's what's expected of him. Well, they think I'm a trouble maker so I'm going to BE a trouble maker! I'm going to be promiscuous and not accept responsibility because they say I'm promiscuous and unable to take responsibility.

Fine, let him be. And let those who disagree with him - of which there are many - have the option to live as they want to. He might not be a fit parent. Reading his tripe, he is most likely correct. But it's not his being gay that the cause of that. It's his beliefs and attitudes.

Raven

My reading comprehension is excellent.

You inferred I was a bigot. You said I was prejudice. Yes to call me prejudice is slander. By strict definition it may simply mean to pre - judge something but in our society it has become synonymous with racist, homophobe, and bigot.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=prejudice

http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=prejudice&matchtyp e=exact


It is easier to attack me than to form a rational argument for your case.

[DeV]

Xtc, I agree with Raven. You tried to back your argument/opinion by providing links of a homosexual man who is obviously and blatantly homophobic and ashamed of his sexuality to make your argument seem stronger.

Bottom line, it backfired. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion but for you to believe for a second that a gay person cannot be homophobic or make a good parent is ridiculous.

You are prejudice in this instance because not only are you saying a gay parent is not a good one but you are making it synonmous with one of your reasons they shouldn't be allowed to marry legally. That is pre-judging.

[Jazuela]

XTC, before you start screaming slander, you might want to look up the word in the dictionary and learn what the word means first.

Since you obviously don't know what it means, your claim is null and void.

For the record: The word you are looking for is libel, not slander. Slander is an oral statement. Libel is a written statement.

Second, libel is only libel if it damages someone's reputation, or is untrue. Since stating an opinion isn't stating a fact, there can be no "true" or "untrue" thing about it. Further, your reputation is rather tarnished already, so calling you prejudiced can't exactly damage it. Therefore, no one has committed a libelous act on your person, and your claim of such is, again, null and void.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
Your arguments are a stretch in my opinion. One could argue that the earth is flat.

Could sure, be correct ... no. A fool's argument is a fool's argument and nothing more.


Since your category A is populated by micro-organisms I wouldn't say it is an applicable argument.

No, micro organisms generally reproduce asexually and are not represented in any of the aforementioned categories.

Insects, reptiles, amphibians, and almost all aquatic life populate A with a very small amount of exceptions.


In none of the above examples do two homosexual parents of the same sex raise the off-spring.

In an extreme excess of "none" actually.


I have never mentioned God in any of my arguments. What I do know about nature is that two men can not produce a child neither can two women. Nature is a wonderful, beautiful, and intricate thing. I choose to trust nature rather than the latest political fad.

You trust something you have no comprehension of apparently.

The human social structure is not a "natural" thing. The rearing of human children is very diverse and not in line with anything "natural".

[xtc]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
Xtc, I agree with Raven. You tried to back your argument/opinion by providing links of a homosexual man who is obviously and blatantly homophobic and ashamed of his sexuality to make your argument seem stronger.

Bottom line, it backfired. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion but for you to believe for a second that a gay person cannot be homophobic or make a good parent is ridiculous.

You are prejudice in this instance because not only are you saying a gay parent is not a good one but you are making it synonmous with one of your reasons they shouldn't be allowed to marry legally. That is pre-judging.

Now you are making judgements on this man. My point was simple that not all homosexuals want gay marriage. I guess if doesn't fit the activist model of what a homosexual should think then he must be ashamed of his sexuality and homophobic. Interesting argument and rather um fascist.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by xtc
I guess if doesn't fit the activist model of what a homosexual should think then he must be ashamed of his sexuality and homophobic. Interesting argument and rather um fascist.

This guy advocates conversion therapy. And what, you might ask, is conversion therapy? it tries to turn gays straight because they're ashamed of their sexuality and often homophobic.

Now, I don't normally do this but since I've been accused of slander - or more accurately libel - I may as well do somethign to deserve it. You sir, are an idiot. There, I'm guilty.

Then again, it's only libel if it's untrue.

Raven

[xtc]

Originally posted by Jazuela
XTC, before you start screaming slander, you might want to look up the word in the dictionary and learn what the word means first.

Since you obviously don't know what it means, your claim is null and void.

For the record: The word you are looking for is libel, not slander. Slander is an oral statement. Libel is a written statement.

Second, libel is only libel if it damages someone's reputation, or is untrue. Since stating an opinion isn't stating a fact, there can be no "true" or "untrue" thing about it. Further, your reputation is rather tarnished already, so calling you prejudiced can't exactly damage it. Therefore, no one has committed a libelous act on your person, and your claim of such is, again, null and void.

First off no one was screaming.

Secondly rather than form a rational argument he inferred I was a bigot and said I was prejudice. I wasn't looking to make a federal case. I was simply pointing out that he attacked me rather than form a proper argument period.

Yes you are correct slander was incorrect, libel would be the appropriate word.

As for the rest of your post about my character, I am assuming you're a law student, keep studying.

[Edited on 12-13-2004 by xtc]

[GSTamral]

As far as I know, the only valid argument against gay marriage is one of discrimination. It is not discrimination against gay people to not have a legal way to marry.

Marriage is a priviledge granted to a man and woman, and gives them certain rights as well as liabilities upon legally marrying. Currently, that priviledge has not been extended past a man and woman. While tenuous, it is valid, and more importantly, in the United States, votes have been made regarding the topic, and a large majority of Americans do not wish it to be written in law.

Secondly, the term marriage itself is deeply rooted in religion. As such, allowing gays to be married would be a large violation to core beliefs of some religious people. Many of those same people would not have as extreme reservations against civil unions, which could grant them the same priviledges under government law, but would also give the religious institutions the ability to not be forced by law to recognize such a union as marriage.

My own personal feelings aside, it is the right of anyone to disagree with the law, and it is the right of anyone to voice such opinions, but it is also the obligation of people to respect the law so long as they take residence in this country. People are free to leave the country if they wish to violate federal law.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by xtc
Your arguments are a stretch in my opinion. One could argue that the earth is flat.

Could sure, be correct ... no. A fool's argument is a fool's argument and nothing more.


Since your category A is populated by micro-organisms I wouldn't say it is an applicable argument.

No, micro organisms generally reproduce asexually and are not represented in any of the aforementioned categories.

Insects, reptiles, amphibians, and almost all aquatic life populate A with a very small amount of exceptions.


In none of the above examples do two homosexual parents of the same sex raise the off-spring.

In an extreme excess of "none" actually.


I have never mentioned God in any of my arguments. What I do know about nature is that two men can not produce a child neither can two women. Nature is a wonderful, beautiful, and intricate thing. I choose to trust nature rather than the latest political fad.

You trust something you have no comprehension of apparently.

The human social structure is not a "natural" thing. The rearing of human children is very diverse and not in line with anything "natural".

This is an example of one of my favourite Tsa'ah arguments. Dissected to the point of not making sense. I am not being sarcastic. When you keep your cool, you could make white seem black and black seem white.

I have never pretended to be a bio major. However I am assuming micro-organisms don't raise their young which was your category A. Yes they reproduce asexually. I also assume micro organisms out populate insects, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic life. However it is neither here nor there.

Regarding nature, you can say that the process of human child rearing is unnatural because it is created by us. However this ignores human instinct which is natural.

Two men can’t procreate a child; two women can’t procreate a child. There is a reason for this.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by xtc
I guess if doesn't fit the activist model of what a homosexual should think then he must be ashamed of his sexuality and homophobic. Interesting argument and rather um fascist.

This guy advocates conversion therapy. And what, you might ask, is conversion therapy? it tries to turn gays straight because they're ashamed of their sexuality and often homophobic.

Now, I don't normally do this but since I've been accused of slander - or more accurately libel - I may as well do somethign to deserve it. You sir, are an idiot. There, I'm guilty.

Then again, it's only libel if it's untrue.

Raven


If I were to judge you from this thread, I wouldn't loose a lot of sleep from your insult. Despite the histrionics from other posters my slander/libel comment was simply pointing out that you were attacking me rather than form a rational argument.

Oh wait you did it again. I guess you are unable to form a rational argument, so you attack those who disagree with you. Great fascist strategy

[GSTamral]

From a purely biological point of view, most species of animals ostracize members of the community that are homosexual, but not all. I have heard that homosexual male giraffes for one, are as welcome in a herd as any other.

Some other species, such as animals from the big cat family, have a habit of ostracizing/slaying not only homosexual members, but also those are inbred, even if there are no physical or classifiable mental retardations visible from inbreeding. How they can tell, I don't know.

[Ravenstorm]

I've never heard that once. In fact, seeing as how homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom so often went unnoticed because it appeared little different from other sexual behavior in species where primary sexual characteristics are not obvious, it would be fairly safe to say that they were not ostracized at all otherwise it would have been noted much sooner as zoologists looked for a reason for such ostracism.

Granted, that's an assumption on my part but a link backing up that statement would be interesting to see.

...

What? What's everyone laughing at?

Raven

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
This is an example of one of my favourite Tsa'ah arguments. Dissected to the point of not making sense.

Who exactly isn't making sense? You for not understanding the basis of your argument, or me for pointing out your misunderstanding?


I have never pretended to be a bio major. However I am assuming micro-organisms don't raise their young which was your category A. Yes they reproduce asexually. I also assume micro organisms out populate insects, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic life. However it is neither here nor there.

It is exactly here. Let me re-quote what you are misunderstanding ... ie: category A.


The majority of life forms that procreate do not raise their off-spring.

Notice the bolded word. Procreation denotes conception, fertilization. Micro-organisms don't bump uglies, thus asexual reproduction the logical deduction. In essence, one becomes two. There are no clear parent(s), thus exempt from category A and are of a category unto themselves.


Regarding nature, you can say that the process of human child rearing is unnatural because it is created by us. However this ignores human instinct which is natural.

No, nothing about human nature or existence is natural. We, as a species, have stepped outside of the mold.


Two men can’t procreate a child; two women can’t procreate a child. There is a reason for this.

Because we are no longer single celled organisms.

Yet nothing in that statement supports your argument. You just assume that since same sex sapiens can't produce off-spring, they are not meant to rear them either.

You have nothing to support this other than personal belief. If this is the case just say ... I don't have a reason, I just don't like the idea.

[GSTamral]

I am not sure of any link, however I did see something regarding it on animal planet about 2 years ago. I can't speak for the validity of it beyond animal planet's reputation. They focused on species such as elephants, giraffes, lions/tigers, and one or two others.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by xtc
This is an example of one of my favourite Tsa'ah arguments. Dissected to the point of not making sense.

Who exactly isn't making sense? You for not understanding the basis of your argument, or me for pointing out your misunderstanding?


I have never pretended to be a bio major. However I am assuming micro-organisms don't raise their young which was your category A. Yes they reproduce asexually. I also assume micro organisms out populate insects, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic life. However it is neither here nor there.

It is exactly here. Let me re-quote what you are misunderstanding ... ie: category A.


The majority of life forms that procreate do not raise their off-spring.

Notice the bolded word. Procreation denotes conception, fertilization. Micro-organisms don't bump uglies, thus asexual reproduction the logical deduction. In essence, one becomes two. There are no clear parent(s), thus exempt from category A and are of a category unto themselves.


Regarding nature, you can say that the process of human child rearing is unnatural because it is created by us. However this ignores human instinct which is natural.

No, nothing about human nature or existence is natural. We, as a species, have stepped outside of the mold.


Two men can’t procreate a child; two women can’t procreate a child. There is a reason for this.

Because we are no longer single celled organisms.

Yet nothing in that statement supports your argument. You just assume that since same sex sapiens can't produce off-spring, they are not meant to rear them either.

You have nothing to support this other than personal belief. If this is the case just say ... I don't have a reason, I just don't like the idea.

Procreate means, according to the Oxford dictionary, to produce young. Call it reproduction or procreation, regardless it is semantics, and neither here not there.

Saying that nothing about human nature or existence is natural is a stretch. Human NATURE. Certainly the instinct to protect and raise young is natural.

If nature wanted same sex sapiens to raise young, nature would have given same sex sapiens the ability to create them period. My argument is sound despite your excellent semantics.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by GSTamral
From a purely biological point of view, most species of animals ostracize members of the community that are homosexual, but not all. I have heard that homosexual male giraffes for one, are as welcome in a herd as any other.

When you deal with most societal structures in the animal kingdom you are dealing with 1 male, the alpha, and females. There are variances of course. An alpha, the only one that breeds, and a court of weaker males that hang on for a chance to become the alpha.


Some other species, such as animals from the big cat family, have a habit of ostracizing/slaying not only homosexual members, but also those are inbred, even if there are no physical or classifiable mental retardations visible from inbreeding. How they can tell, I don't know.

This and the prior are classic cases of looking at a situation and coming to a narrow conclusion without weighing all of the circumstances.

Of course a gay male anything is going to be ostracized. He wants ass, and not female ass. He's not the alpha, he doesn't want to be the alpha and it's likely he won't find any willing ass. What does he have to stick around for?

Let's think about why they are killed.

A gay male wants male ass. In the animal kingdom, he doesn't really care if the male ass he gets is consenting and willing. He tries to bone the Alpha ... the Alpha kills him. In some cases the Alpha or a Beta are killed.

This is not a case of "they have gaydar" and kill a gay male while it is young. This is a case of the grown gay male trying to get some and the recipient isn't willing to give it up.


[Edited on 12-13-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by GSTamral
I am not sure of any link, however I did see something regarding it on animal planet about 2 years ago.

Should anyone happen to run across something about this, please provide the link. A search of the web and Animal's Planet's site failed to provide any info and I'd be interested in reading about it if it is indeed the case.

Raven

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
Procreate means, according to the Oxford dictionary, to produce young. Call it reproduction or procreation, regardless it is semantics, and neither here not there.

That's pretty much a straw argument. I take it you don't have an educational back ground in biology. Reproduction is general, procreation is specific. Micro organisms do not conceive, thus they do not procreate, they reproduce via mitosis.

So ...

Reproduction - General
Procreation - Specific to conception

Now with that out of the way.



Saying that nothing about human nature or existence is natural is a stretch. Human NATURE. Certainly the instinct to protect and raise young is natural.

Now you want to specify human nature. Changing your natural argument?

The term "human nature" is rather vague. Human nature steps outside of the mold in that humans are the only species to kill it's own for reasons outside of euthanasia. Human nature steps outside of the mold when we do not allow for our sick and infirmed to die. Human nature steps outside of the mold with monogamy. Human nature steps outside of the mold with agriculture. Human nature steps outside of the mold with clothing.

Human nature is far from "natural". So if you want to specify Human nature, why is it so wrong for such an unnatural species to accept the rearing of off-spring by same sex parents?


If nature wanted same sex sapiens to raise young, nature would have given same sex sapiens the ability to create them period. My argument is sound despite your excellent semantics.

You see the conflict of your statement yet, or should I keep beating your about the head and neck with logic?

[xtc]

I won't be on this forum for the next week but in the interim I have found this article quoting numerous studies that shows why gay marriage isn't beneficial for its participants, society, or children raised in such a union.

Society has a vested interest in prohibiting behavior that endangers the health or safety of the community. Because of this, homosexual liaisons have historically been forbidden by law.
Homosexuals contend that their relationships are the equivalent of marriage between a man and woman. They demand that society dignify and approve of their partnerships by giving them legal status as 'marriages.' They further argue that homosexuals should be allowed to become foster parents or adopt children.
The best scientific evidence suggests that putting society's stamp of approval on homosexual partnerships would harm society in general and homosexuals in particular, the very individuals some contend would be helped.
A large body of scientific evidence suggests that homosexual marriage is a defective counterfeit of traditional marriage and that it poses a clear and present danger to the health of the community:
Traditional marriage improves the health of its participants, has the lowest rate of domestic violence, prolongs life, and is the best context in which to raise children.
Homosexual coupling undermines its participants' health, has the highest rate of domestic violence, shortens life, and is a poor environment in which to raise children.
The Facts About Homosexual Marriage
Fact #1: Homosexual marriages are short lived.
When one examines homosexual behavior patterns, it becomes clear that the plea for legal homosexual marriage is less about marriage than the push for legitimacy. Most gays and lesbians are not in monogamous relationships, and in fact often live alone by preference.
• In a study(1) of 2,000 U.S. and European gays in the 1960s, researchers found that "living by oneself is probably the chief residential pattern for male homosexuals. It provides the freedom to pursue whatever style of homosexual life one chooses, whether it be furtive encounters in parks or immersion in the homosexual subculture. In addition, homosexual relationships are fragile enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate or not."
• A 1970 study in San Francisco(2) found that approximately 61% of gays and 37% of lesbians were living alone.
• In 1977, the Spada Report(3) noted that only 8% of the gays in its sample claimed to have a monogamous relationship with a live-in lover.
• The same year(4) over 5,000 gays and lesbians were asked: "Do you consider or have you considered yourself 'married' to another [homosexual]?" Only 40% of lesbians and 25% of gays said "yes." The authors noted that with "gay male couples, it is hard to even suggest that there are norms of behavior. [One] might expect to find a clear pattern of 'categories' emerging from the answers to the questions about lovers, boy friends, and relationships. In fact, no such pattern emerged."
• In the early 1980s, a large non-random sample(5) of almost 8,000 heterosexual and homosexual couples responded to advertisements in alternative newspapers. The average number of years together was 9.8 for the married, 1.7, for cohabiting heterosexuals, 3.5 for the gay couples, and 2.2 for the lesbian couples.
Variety Over Monogamy
Although gay activists often argue that legalizing homosexual marriage.would help make such relationships more permanent, the reality is that most gays desire variety in their sex partners, not the monogamy of traditional marriage.
• In 1987, only 23% of gays in London(6) reported sexual exclusivity "in the month before interview."
• In 1990, only 12% of gays in Toronto, Canada(7) said that they were in monogamous relationships.
• In 1991, in the midst of the AIDS crisis, Australian gays(8) were monitored to see whether they had changed their sexual habits. There was essentially no change in 5 years: 23% reported a monogamous relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% only "casual sex." The authors reported that "there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them."
• In 1993, a study(9) of 428 gays in San Francisco found that only 14% reported just a single sexual partner in the previous year. The vast majority had multiple sex partners.
• In 1994, the largest national gay magazine'° reported that only 17% of its sample of 2,500 gays claimed to live together in a monogamous relationship.
Even gays who do have long-term partners do not play by the typical 'rules.' Only 69% of Dutch gays" with a marriage-type 'partner' actually lived together. The average number of "outside partners" per year of 'marriage' was 7.1 and increased from 2.5 in the first year of the relationship to 11 in the 6th year.
Why are homosexual marriages shorter and less committed than traditional marriages?
At any given time, less than a third of gays and approximately half of lesbians are living with a lover. Because the relationships are so short, the average homosexual can anticipate many, many 'divorces.'
At any instant, about 10% of gays live together in monogamous relationships. Their monogamy seldom lasts beyond a year. Perhaps half of lesbians live together in monogamous relationships. These typically dissolve in one to three years.
These same patterns appear in the scientific literature over the last 50 yearsboth long before and during the AIDS epidemic. This consistency suggests a reality associated with the practice of homosexuality, one unlikely to be affected by changes in marriage laws.
The Danish Experience
In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since 1989. Through 1995, less than 5% of Danish homosexuals had gotten married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce or death.(12)
The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay 'marriage' is baneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women! Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt to be a widow than a woman who married a man.
Fact #2: Studies show homosexual marriage is hazardous to one's health.
Across the world, numerous researchers have reported that 'committed' or 'coupled' homosexuals are more apt to engage in highly risky and biologically unsanitary sexual practices than are 'single' gays. As a consequence of this activity, they increase their chances of getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted or blood-borne diseases.
• In 1983, near the beginning of the.AIDS epidemic, gays in San Francisco(13) who claimed to be in "monogamous relationships" were compared to those who were not. Without exception, those in monogamous relationships more frequently reported that they had engaged in biologically unhealthy activity during the past year. As examples, 4.5% of the monogamous v. 2.2% of the unpartnered had engaged in drinking urine, and 33.3% v. 19.6% claimed to practice oral-anal sex.
• In a sample of London gays(6) in 1987, those infected with HIV were more apt to have regular partners than those not so infected.In 1989, Italian researchers(14) investigated 127 gays attending an AIDS clinic. Twelve percent of those without steady partners v. 28% of those with steady partners were HIV+. The investigators remarked that "to our surprise, male prostitutes did not seem to be at increased risk, whereas homosexuals who reported a steady partner (i.e., the same man for the previous six months) carried the highest relative risk."
• During 1991-92, 677 gays in England(15) were asked about "unprotected anal sex." Those who had 'regular' partners reported sex lives which were "about three times as likely to involve unprotected anal sex than partnerships described as 'casual/one-night stands."' Sex with a regular partner "was far more important than awareness of HIV status in facilitating high-risk behaviour."
• A 1993 British sexual diary study(16) of 385 gays reported that men in "monogamous" relationships practiced more anal intercourse and more anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. It concluded that "gay men in a Closed relationship... exhibit... the highest risk of HIV transmission."
• In 1992, a sample(17) of 2,593 gays from Tucson, AZ and Portland, OR reinforced the consistent finding that "gay men in primary relationships are significantly more likely than single men to have engaged in unprotected anal intercourse."
• Similarly, a 1993 sample(18) of gays from Barcelona, Spain practiced riskier sex with their regular partners than with casual pick ups.
• Even a 1994 study(19) of over 600 lesbians demonstrated that "the connection between monogamy and unprotected sex,... was very consistent across interviews. Protected sex was generally equated with casual encounters; unprotected sex was generally equated with trusting relationships. Not using latex barriers was seen as a step in the process of relational commitment. Choosing to have unprotected sex indicated deepening trust and intimacy as the relationship grew."
Why is homosexual marriage a health hazard?
While married people pledge and generally live up to their vows of sexual faithfulness, participants in both gay and lesbian "marriages" offer each other something quite different. They see shared biological intimacy and sexual risk-taking as the hallmark of trust and commitment. Being exposed in this way to the bodily discharges of their partner increases the risk of disease, especially so if that partner was 'married' to someone else before or engaged in sex with others outside the relationship.
The evidence is strong that both gays and lesbians are more apt to take biological risks when having sex with a partner than when having casual sex. The evidence is also strong that gays disproportionately contract more disease, especially AIDS and the various forms of hepatitis, from sex with "partners" than they do from sex with strangers. There is also some evidence(20) that gays with partners are more apt to die of both AIDS and non-AIDS conditions than those without partners.
Like gays, 'married' lesbians are more apt to engage in biological intimacy and risk-taking. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether disease or death rates are higher for partnered or unpartnered lesbians.
Fact #3: Homosexual marriage has the highest rate of domestic violence.
Domestic violence is a public health concern. Among heterosexuals, not only is it an obvious marker of a troubled marriage, but media attention and tax dollars to aid 'battered women' have both grown tremendously in recent years. What is not reported is the empirical evidence suggesting that homosexual couples have higher rates of domestic violence than do heterosexual couples, especially among lesbians.
In 1996,(21) Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay Lesbian Center, said that "domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse... in terms of sheer numbers and lethality."
The average rate of domestic violence in traditional marriage, established by a nationwide federal government survey(22) of 6,779 married couples in 1988, is apparently less than 5% per year. During their most recent year of marriage, 2.0% of husbands and 3.2% of wives said that they were hit, shoved or had things thrown at them. Unmarried, cohabiting heterosexual’s report(23) higher rates of violence rate of about 20% to 25% per year.
When the same standard is applied to gay and lesbian relationships, the following evidence emerges:
• In 1987,(24) 48% of 43 lesbian, and 39% of 39 gay Georgia couples reported domestic violence.
• In 1988,(25) 70 lesbian and gay students participated in a study of conflict resolution in gay and lesbian relationships. Adjusted upward for reporting by only one partner in the couple (i.e., "only one side of the story"), an estimated 29% of gay and 56% of lesbian couples experienced violence in the past year.
• In 1989,(26) 284 lesbians were interviewed who were involved "in a committed, cohabitating lesbian relationship" during the last 6 months. Adjusted for reporting by just one partner, an estimated 43% of the relationships were violent in the past year.
• In 1990,(27) nearly half of 90 lesbian couples in Los Angeles reported domestic violence yearly. 21% of these women said that they were mothers. Interestingly, of those mothers who had children living with them, 11 lived in "violent" and 11 in "non-violent" relationships. Thus, unlike traditional marriage where parents will often forego fighting to shield the children from hostility, there was no evidence from this investigation that the presence of youngsters reduced the rate of domestic violence.
Overall, the evidence is fairly compelling that homosexual domestic violence exceeds heterosexual domestic violence. The limited scientific literature suggests that physical domestic violence occurs every year among less than 5% of traditionally married couples, 20% to 25% of cohabiting heterosexuals, and approximately half of lesbian couples. The evidence is less certain for gays, but their rate appears to fall somewhere between that for unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals and lesbians.
Fact #4: Homosexual domestic violence is a bigger problem than gay bashing.
Gay activists and the media are quick to assert that discriminatory attitudes by 'straight' society lead directly to violence against homosexuals (i.e., 'gay bashing'). In fact, evidence suggests that homosexual domestic violence substantially exceeds, in frequency and lethality, any and all forms of 'gay bashing.' That is, the violence that homosexuals do to one another is much more significant than the violence that others do to homosexuals.
In 1995, a homosexual domestic violence consortium conducted a study(28) in six cities Chicago, Columbus, Minneapolis, New York, San Diego, and San Francisco where reports of anti-homosexual harassment or same sex domestic violence were tabulated.
The harassment incidents ranged from name calling (e.g., 'faggot,' 'queer') to actual physical harm or property damage. Homosexual domestic violence, on the other hand, referred only to incidents in which actual physical harm occurred or was seriously threatened (i.e., met the legal standard for domestic violence).
The results? Nationwide,(29) as well as in these cities, around half of anti-homosexual harassment reports in 1995 involved only slurs or insults, thus not rising to the level of actual or threatened physical violence.
In San Francisco, there were 347 calls about same-sex domestic violence and 324 calls about anti-homosexual harassment. In three of the five other cities there were also more calls reporting same-sex domestic violence than anti-homosexual harassment. The same ratio was reported for the study as a whole.
Given that half of the harassment reports did not rise to the level of violence, while domestic violence meant exactly that, if the data gathered by this consortium of homosexuals corresponds to the underlying reality, the physical threat to homosexuals from same-sex domestic violence is more than twice as great as the physical threat they experience from 'the outside.'
Rather than being a 'shelter against the storms of life,' as traditional marriage is sometimes characterized, being homosexually partnered actually increases the physical dangers associated with homosexuality.
Fact #5: Homosexuals make poor parents.
Fewer than 20 empirical studies have been done on homosexual parents. These studies have been small, biased, and generally fail to address many of the traditional concerns regarding homosexual parenting. However, the limited evidence they have generated supports what common sense would expect.
The largest study,(30) and the only one based on a random sample, estimated that less than half of a percent of Americans have had a homosexual parent. Those who did were more likely to:
1. report having had sex with a parent,
2. experience homosexuality as their first sexual encounter,
3. be sexually molested,
4. become homosexual or bisexual, and
5. report dissatisfaction with their childhood.
The various studies,(31) added together, suggest that the children of homosexuals are at least 3 times more apt to become homosexual than children raised by the traditionally married.
Further, there is reasonable evidence, both in the empirical literature and in dozens of court cases dealing with the issue,(32) that children of homosexuals are more apt to be sexually exposed to the homosexual lifestyle and/or molested.
Finally, substantial evidence(31) suggests that children of homosexuals are more apt to doubt their own sexuality, be embarrassed by their homosexual parent(s), and be teased and taunted by their peers.
What Can We Conclude?
Homosexual marriage is a bad idea, While traditional marriage delivers benefits to its participants as well as to society, gay marriage harms everyone it touches especially homosexuals themselves. Not only does it place homosexuals at increased risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, but it also subjects them to an increased threat of domestic violence and early death.
Homosexual marriage is nothing like traditional marriage. Homosexual unions are not built around lifetime commitments, nor are they good environments to raise children.
Those who support legalizing homosexual marriage include the same compassionate people who championed the right of singles to become parents. We know the results of that campaign: a third of the nation's children do not have a father. We also know that children without fathers much more often do poorly in school, get in trouble with the law, and become dysfunctional parents themselves.
It would be foolish to tamper with something as vital to personal and social health as traditional marriage in order the placate the same troubled souls that pushed for our current cultural mess.
________________________________________
References
1. Weinberg, M.S. Williams, C.J. Male homosexuals: their problems adaptations. NY: Penguin, 1975.
2. Bell, A. P. Weinberg, M.S. Homosexuality NY:Simon Schuster, 1978.
3. Spada, J. The Spada report. NY:Sigmet, 1979
4. Jay, K. Young, A. The gay report. NY:Summit, 1979.
5. Blumstein, P. Schwartz, P. American couples NY:Morrow, 1983.
6. Hunt, A. J., et al. Genitourinary Medicine, 1990, 66, 423427.
7. Orr, K., Morrison, K. Doing it in the 90s. Univ. Toronto, Laval Universities, 1993.
8. Kippax, S., et al. AIDS, 1993, 7, 257-263.
9. Osmond, D. H., et al. Amer I Public Health, 1994, 84, 1933-1937.
10. Lever, J. Advocate, Issue 661/662, August, 23, 1994, 15-24.
11. Deenen, A. A., et al. Archives Serual Behavior,1994, 23, 421431.
12. Wockner, R. Advocate, Issue 726, February 4, 1997, 26.
13. McKusick, L., et al. Amer I Public Health, 1985, 75, 493-496.
14. Franceschi, S., et al. Lancet, 1989, 1, 42.
15. Dawson, J. M., et al. AIDS, 1994, 8, 837-841.
16. Coxon A.P.M., et al. AIDS, 1993, 7, 877-882.
17. Hoff, C.C., et al. I Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 1997, 14, 72-78.
18. Wang, J. et al. Soc Sci Med, 1997, 44, 469-77.
19. Stevens, P. E. Soc Sci Med, 1994, 39,1565-78.
20. Cameron, P., Playfair, W. L., Wellum, S. The longevity of homosexuals. Omega, 1994, 29, 249 272.
21. Holt S. Ending the cycle of domestic violence. Gay Lesbian Times, 9126196, p. 39.
22. Sorenson, J, et al.. Amer I Public Health. 1996, 86, 3540.
23. Ellis, D. Violence Victims, 1989, 4, 235-255.
24. Gardner, R. Method of conflict resolution correlates to physical aggression victimization in heterosexual, lesbian, gay male couples. Unpub Doc Dis, U Georgia, 1988.
25. Waterman, C.K, et al. J Sel Research 1989, 26, 118 124.
26. Lockhart, L.L., et al. I Interpersonal Violence, 1994, 9, 469492.
27. Coleman, V. Violence in lesbian couples: a between groups comparison. Unpub Doc Dis, CA Sch Prof Psych:LA, 1990.
28. Merrill, G. Press release from National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, October 22, 1996 from San Francisco various interviews in November, 1996 with senior author Memll, Jem Lynn Fields in Chicago, Bea Hanson in New York.
29. Anti-Lesbian/Gay Violence in 1995. Horizons Community Services. Self published.
30. Cameron, P. Cameron, K. Homosexual parents, Adolescence, 1996, 31, 757-776.
31. Cameron, P. Cameron, K. Did the APA misrepresent the scientific literature to counsel in support of homosexual custody? I Psychology, 1997, 131, 1-20.
32. Cameron, P. Cameron, K. Homosexual parents: a natural comparison. Psychol Repts, 1997, in press.

[Jahira]

That is a lot of words.......

[Tsa`ah]

Search the references next time.

Most of those listed are homophobic bigoted shits, so it would be no surprise.

The only clout some of them have is a degree. Then again, you have to look at the degree as well.

#32, 31, 30 - Psychology influenced by theology. Wonder what that slant is going to be. :rolleyes:

#29 - Nice case of using a Gay and Lesbian social service as a means of pulling statistics to back a straw argument. Do not the neglect of using "hetero" violence figures for an accurate comparison.

I could literally have a field day blowing these sources out of the water.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Search the references next time.

Most of those listed are homophobic bigoted shits, so it would be no surprise.

The only clout some of them have is a degree. Then again, you have to look at the degree as well.

#32, 31, 30 - Psychology influenced by theology. Wonder what that slant is going to be. :rolleyes:

#29 - Nice case of using a Gay and Lesbian social service as a means of pulling statistics to back a straw argument. Do not the neglect of using "hetero" violence figures for an accurate comparison.

I could literally have a field day blowing these sources out of the water.

How about the 28 other sources.

How about the APA influenced by gay activist groups. That isn't biased?

Doesn't paint a pretty picture of gay marriage does it?

Perhaps you will go back to your, because humans commit murder gay marriage is a good idea argument. I liked that one.

Have a good week see you all on the 20th.

[Tsa`ah]

Typical of you to completely miss the point that your own argument laid the grounds for.

.... And re-read the last sentence of my last post quoted by you. Comprehension definitely is not your strong suite.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I could literally have a field day blowing these sources out of the water.

You don't need to. It's already been done here:

Dr. Paul Cameron and the Family Research Institute (http://www.qrd.org/QRD/www/RRR/cameron.html)

Now, unlike a certain other person I'll just let everyone know in advance that the site I listed is indeed gay-friendly. That doesn't change the facts listed and they can be verified. Such as the one that the dear Dr. Cameron was kicked out of the American Psychological Association.

First an "ex-gay" and now this guy. I'll paraphrase a famous quote:

You are known by the sources you cite.

Raven

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by xtc
How about the APA influenced by gay activist groups.

And we wrote Canada's Constitution too. Damn, we're good.

Raven

[Tsa`ah]

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!

Sorry SHM ... had to be done.

[Ravenstorm]

And one of Martin Luther King Jr.'s closest advisors, Bayard Rustin, was gay. He was the chief organizer for the '63 march on Washington which ended in the "I have a dream" speech. So we can probably take credit for that too.

So if you too want to get in on the ground floor of the fastest growing organization for world domination, buy your homosexual badge today!

Raven

[4a6c1]

I'm so glad I married a man. Saying partner all the time would drive me bonkers and make me feel like I was in some really strange rainbow colored western movie.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!

Sorry SHM ... had to be done.

ROFL.

Glad I checked the thread to see if the flames were still burning.

PS -- Some points made here actually are making me rethink the whole gay marriage thing.

PPS - the reference to flames burning above was in no way associated with homosexuals.

[Ravenstorm]

Well, I was honestly going to just let this drop but I decided on one more post solely for your benefit, xtc. Perhaps you shall learn something though I consider it improbable. More likely, someone who might actualy have thought you had some kind of point (though even that approaches the realm of impossibility) will realize just what bullshit you quoted. I've already provided links to rebut that garbage so I'll just summarize for those who don't want to wade through it all.

People might remember Fred Leuchter being mentioned on these boards previously. He's the revisionist who claimed the Holocaust never happened and, despite his so-called research being thoroughly debunked, bigots still quote him hoping that if they say it long enough and loud enough someone will actually believe it without checking the facts. Paul Cameron is to homosexuality what Leuchter is to the Holocaust. And like the revisionists who love Leuchter, the Religious Reich loves Cameron.

I had thought you merely misinformed or ignorant but I see my mistake now. So please, continue to quote him as an authority. Doing so puts you on the same level as Testosterone and will speak much more clearly about you and your opinion than anything I might say.

Raven

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Typical of you to completely miss the point that your own argument laid the grounds for.

.... And re-read the last sentence of my last post quoted by you. Comprehension definitely is not your strong suite.

I read and comprehended your last sentence. You haven't successfully refuted any of the sources. So please be my guest. Quote 32 studies that refute the ones that I have listed. So far nothing.

You haven't laid out an argument for Gay Marriage either. You have only made a meagre attempt to attack my reasons for denying it.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I could literally have a field day blowing these sources out of the water.

You don't need to. It's already been done here:

Dr. Paul Cameron and the Family Research Institute (http://www.qrd.org/QRD/www/RRR/cameron.html)

Now, unlike a certain other person I'll just let everyone know in advance that the site I listed is indeed gay-friendly. That doesn't change the facts listed and they can be verified. Such as the one that the dear Dr. Cameron was kicked out of the American Psychological Association.

First an "ex-gay" and now this guy. I'll paraphrase a famous quote:

You are known by the sources you cite.

Raven

LFMAO, that site couldn't be objective if it tried. Do you have any other sources?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Well, I was honestly going to just let this drop but I decided on one more post solely for your benefit, xtc. Perhaps you shall learn something though I consider it improbable. More likely, someone who might actualy have thought you had some kind of point (though even that approaches the realm of impossibility) will realize just what bullshit you quoted. I've already provided links to rebut that garbage so I'll just summarize for those who don't want to wade through it all.

People might remember Fred Leuchter being mentioned on these boards previously. He's the revisionist who claimed the Holocaust never happened and, despite his so-called research being thoroughly debunked, bigots still quote him hoping that if they say it long enough and loud enough someone will actually believe it without checking the facts. Paul Cameron is to homosexuality what Leuchter is to the Holocaust. And like the revisionists who love Leuchter, the Religious Reich loves Cameron.

I had thought you merely misinformed or ignorant but I see my mistake now. So please, continue to quote him as an authority. Doing so puts you on the same level as Testosterone and will speak much more clearly about you and your opinion than anything I might say.

Raven

Again the same method of attacking me, rathering than forming a rational argument.

Now you have put me on par with a Holocaust denier.

Why don't you try quoting sources that counter the numerous sources that Cameron has listed. Better yet form a rational argument for Gay Marriage. So far nothing.

[Edited on 12-13-2004 by xtc]

[DeV]

Talk about forming a rational argument. :rofl:
Why should Raven even attempt to counter some of the garbage from the links you have posted? That'd be a serious waste of time.

[xtc]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
Talk about forming a rational argument. :rofl:
Why should Raven even attempt to counter some of the garbage from the links you have posted? That'd be a serious waste of time.

Uh refute them with evidence i.e. others studies done countering the ones I have posted.

Why? because you are attempting to prove a point. You can call them garbage but that doesn't mean anything. The man quoted over 30 studies. Quote 30 studies stating the opposite.

or

admit you can't prove your point.

[Edited on 12-13-2004 by xtc]

[DeV]

The truth behind Paul Cameron's studies (http://www.geocities.com/ninure/cameron.html)

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
I read and comprehended your last sentence. You haven't successfully refuted any of the sources. So please be my guest. Quote 32 studies that refute the ones that I have listed. So far nothing.

Of course I did.


#32, 31, 30 - Psychology influenced by theology. Wonder what that slant is going to be. :rolleyes:

This is a clear case skewing data in an effort to support a claim.

I could take the same approach in an attempt to claim that hetero sexuality is bad, and dangerous. All I need to do is follow the exact same method Cameron used. Use specific facts to support my claim (abuse, divorce, infidelity, so on and so forth) while completely ignoring the comparison that would indicate ... it's not any different.

When you allow theological views to interrupt the scientific process, you are no longer being scientific. You throw accuracy, objectivity, and the endeavor to prove and disprove out of the window. Cameron is guilty of this.

The article you posted was rather pointedly debunked by me, and thoroughly by Raven's article link.

It is no different that Tamral claiming that nature takes care of homosexuals, and then pointing to action reaction situations in nature. It is not because the gay lion is gay, it is because the gay lion is trying to get some ... other wise the gay lion never would have matured into a lion capable of attempting to violate a straight lion.


You haven't laid out an argument for Gay Marriage either. You have only made a meagre attempt to attack my reasons for denying it.

My intent was to never lay out a pro argument, rather to disprove your con argument.

Your supporting reasons were in direct conflict, from there logic kicks in.

Again, instead of pointing at nature, and human nature, you should just say that you, xtc, do not like the idea and are against the notion for personal reasons that defy any logical argument. You just don't like it and don't want it. Leave the human race, it's nature, and the nature it destroys, out of it.



[Edited on 12-13-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
Again the same method of attacking me, rathering than forming a rational argument.

You dare ask for a rational argument? You have done nothing but argue the irrational and ignore the logical. Aside from that, no one is using the irrational but you. If you wish to point to poor refuted sources, you are in the exact same category as the last member that tried such.


Now you have put me on par with a Holocaust denier.

You allowed plenty of room for this to happen.


Why don't you try quoting sources that counter the numerous sources that Cameron has listed. Better yet form a rational argument for Gay Marriage. So far nothing.

Why post a counter to poor data other than to point out that the data is poor ... corrupt even?

You are your own counter.

[GSTamral]

Most people who are opposed to gays period usually cite the fact that most other species do not tolerate that type of behavoir, thus making it unnatural. As far as choice is concerned, I really don't see how anyone should give a shit about the pure existence of gays.

For the sake of the sanctity of religious institutions, it would probably be best to not immediately jump into the gay marriage thing. As we saw from the vote, it was an entirely clear mandate that americans in general did not favor such a term. Civil Unions would be a more logical first step. It would give them the same legal protections, but at the same time, allow for those institutions in place to not feel as though their beliefs are being stepped on.

As bigoted and coldhearted as it may sound, there is a point at which morals must be trumped by a need to keep stability. Such things need to be phased in when society overwhelmingly opposes something. Immediately calling for gay marriage may only lead to instances of violence and hate in the name of religious belief, something no one wants to see.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Most people who are opposed to gays period usually cite the fact that most other species do not tolerate that type of behavoir, thus making it unnatural. As far as choice is concerned, I really don't see how anyone should give a shit about the pure existence of gays.

Yet that it occurs makes it natural. What they ... you ... site as intolerance is nothing more than action and reaction.

Of course a straight lion isn't going to be receptive of a gay lion. What would you do if a gay man tried to get some from you?

Do you believe a pride is going to stop what they're doing to kill to gay lions going at it? No, it doesn't affect them.

In nature animals are reactive to what is best for the self or the community if there is a pecking order.

The active attempt to rid, banish, or ostracize a gay animal from the rest does not exist ... it is merely reaction to the sexual cravings of the gay animal.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by xtc
I read and comprehended your last sentence. You haven't successfully refuted any of the sources. So please be my guest. Quote 32 studies that refute the ones that I have listed. So far nothing.

Of course I did.


#32, 31, 30 - Psychology influenced by theology. Wonder what that slant is going to be. :rolleyes:

This is a clear case skewing data in an effort to support a claim.

I could take the same approach in an attempt to claim that hetero sexuality is bad, and dangerous. All I need to do is follow the exact same method Cameron used. Use specific facts to support my claim (abuse, divorce, infidelity, so on and so forth) while completely ignoring the comparison that would indicate ... it's not any different.

When you allow theological views to interrupt the scientific process, you are no longer being scientific. You throw accuracy, objectivity, and the endeavor to prove and disprove out of the window. Cameron is guilty of this.

The article you posted was rather pointedly debunked by me, and thoroughly by Raven's article link.

It is no different that Tamral claiming that nature takes care of homosexuals, and then pointing to action reaction situations in nature. It is not because the gay lion is gay, it is because the gay lion is trying to get some ... other wise the gay lion never would have matured into a lion capable of attempting to violate a straight lion.


You haven't laid out an argument for Gay Marriage either. You have only made a meagre attempt to attack my reasons for denying it.

My intent was to never lay out a pro argument, rather to disprove your con argument.

Your supporting reasons were in direct conflict, from there logic kicks in.

Again, instead of pointing at nature, and human nature, you should just say that you, xtc, do not like the idea and are against the notion for personal reasons that defy any logical argument. You just don't like it and don't want it. Leave the human race, it's nature, and the nature it destroys, out of it.



[Edited on 12-13-2004 by Tsa`ah]

After two weeks you have debunked nothing. Claiming that Dr. Cameron’s theology has influenced his research is your opinion; you have yet to prove it. A militant gay site’s opinion is hardly evidence disproving scientific studies.

You still have offered no scientific evidence "debunking" Dr Cameron’s studies.

In other words you could find no evidence to support your argument, so you have attacked my reasons unsuccessfully. You have quoted no studies which contradict Dr Cameron’s and you have quoted no studies supporting your argument. Thus you have failed to prove your case while I have succeeded in making mine.

You came, you saw, you lost.

Have a Merry Christmas.

[Tsa`ah]

I didn't have to disprove a thing after Raven did the service.

I can't help it if you choose to disregard what is under your nose out of the ignorance of your own stance.

The man was removed from scientific circles because he chooses theology over science. What additional proof do you need?

There will never be a valid counter in your eyes because you refuse to accept the existence of the reality that exists outside of your conspiracy driven psyche.

People have heard more convincing and sound debates from the lobotomized.

[Keller]

Originally posted by GSTamral

For the sake of the sanctity of religious institutions, it would probably be best to not immediately jump into the gay marriage thing. As we saw from the vote, it was an entirely clear mandate that americans in general did not favor such a term. Civil Unions would be a more logical first step. It would give them the same legal protections, but at the same time, allow for those institutions in place to not feel as though their beliefs are being stepped on.


I completely see the reasoning behind this argument. However, let's skip the 65 years between Plessy V Ferguson and Brown V Board. Separate but equal didn't work then, don't expect that it will work this time.

Churchs do not have to recognize a state sanctioned marriage. I also think that churchs/clergy should retain the right to deny marrying any two people for any reason. The state can't force the church to act according to the states morals and vice versa.

[Warriorbird]

10 years plus for most of those sources.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I didn't have to disprove a thing after Raven did the service.

I can't help it if you choose to disregard what is under your nose out of the ignorance of your own stance.

The man was removed from scientific circles because he chooses theology over science. What additional proof do you need?

There will never be a valid counter in your eyes because you refuse to accept the existence of the reality that exists outside of your conspiracy driven psyche.

People have heard more convincing and sound debates from the lobotomized.

Raven’s source was the queer resources directory. Not an APA article or an AMA article. I put little faith in the geocities site as well.

You attempted to discredit Dr Paul Cameron; you have yet to post a credible source.

You didn’t even attempt to make a valid argument for your claim, your semantics not withstanding. Anyway it is a tired argument now.

In Canada the most research shows that the majority of Canadians do not support gay marriage. The majority of Canadians also said that they would be inclined to vote for the opposition in the next election, if their Member of Parliament voted in favour of gay marriage.

Canada had moved progressively towards the equalization of gay unions with straight ones, banking, benefits, pension, inheritance etc. As such I don’t believe that this is a civil rights issue, as the benefits of marriage are already enjoyed by gay couples in Canada. I think that the US would be smart to start to move in the same direction. I have no doubt that at some point in Canada, civil unions will become law. But it seems they do not support gay marriage.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by xtc
You attempted to discredit Dr Paul Cameron; you have yet to post a credible source.

You're still on this? You won't find any source credible I'm sure. After all, it's all a conspiracy to discredit a fine doctor and researcher and even the APA has been contaminated by the Gay Mafia. The APA and the Canadian Constitution.

But here, have another source. Another doctor and researcher. Who provides lots of information and links that can verify what he claims.

Paul Cameron is a poopy head. (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html)

And now, enough of this.

Raven

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

And now, enough of this.

Raven Hear hear! The man did a good enough job discrediting himself.

[Keller]

As long as gay marriage in an institution recognized and enforced by the state, any two individuals in a loving relationship should be allowed to marry. Period. No if, no and, and no but. Period.

Any church that chooses to not recognize the STATE-SANCTIONED union has the right to do so. Any church that refuses to marry any two people for any reason should be allowed to. It's so black, and so white, it's not funny.

This is why we separate church and state. Marriage, while it began as a church ceremony, is now a matter of law. We should treat it as such. Should we not allow gays to write wills? Should we not allow blacks to own property? Should we not allow women to vote? Black, and white. No grey. It's that easy.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by xtc
You attempted to discredit Dr Paul Cameron; you have yet to post a credible source.

You're still on this? You won't find any source credible I'm sure. After all, it's all a conspiracy to discredit a fine doctor and researcher and even the APA has been contaminated by the Gay Mafia. The APA and the Canadian Constitution.

But here, have another source. Another doctor and researcher. Who provides lots of information and links that can verify what he claims.

Paul Cameron is a poopy head. (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html)

And now, enough of this.

Raven

For a moment a thought the link to the site that you posted was an unbiased one. It looks like it is from the Psychology department at a University of Davis. I must be honest I haven't heard of it, but I will assume it accredited. Then I noticed the word rainbow in the name of the url. It seems it is an activist site as well, even if affiliated with the University of Davis.

Anyway, discrediting Davis does not alone form an argument.

The Rainbow Site (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/index.html)

I am not some rabid homophobe. I have supported many moves Canada has made in the area of equalisation of services and benefits for gay people. Including things like the Same Sex Benefit Act and I would support Unions. The majority of Canadians do not support gay marriage. I think it would be wiser for the Canadian Government to institute Unions as opposed to marriage.

[HarmNone]

Umm...that would be the University of California at Davis, xtc. I do believe it's accredited. :lol:

The site, according to the information given, is the property of one Gregory M. Herek, PhD. Dr. Herek was the 1996 recipient of the APA's (American Psychological Association) Award for Outstanding Contributions to Psychology in the Public Interest. He recently received a 5-year Independent Scientist Award from NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health).

*Edited to define APA*

[Edited on 1-17-2005 by HarmNone]

[Tsa`ah]

I think we're at the point where nothing submitted will be enough for you.

It's obvious that even his expulsion from the AMA isn't enough, so why would anything from an accredited university be?

After all, the AMA is biased right? I mean, he wasn't thrown out because of his theological preferences interfering with scientific method; it was due to the AMA not liking his stance on homosexuality.

Get a clue guy and go read some more conspiracy theories.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I think we're at the point where nothing submitted will be enough for you.

It's obvious that even his expulsion from the AMA isn't enough, so why would anything from an accredited university be?

After all, the AMA is biased right? I mean, he wasn't thrown out because of his theological preferences interfering with scientific method; it was due to the AMA not liking his stance on homosexuality.

Get a clue guy and go read some more conspiracy theories.


blah...blah...blah......the speed at which you respond. You must live on this site.

[xtc]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Umm...that would be the University of California at Davis, xtc. I do believe it's accredited. :lol:

The site, according to the information given, is the property of one Gregory M. Herek, PhD. Dr. Herek was the 1996 recipient of the APA's (American Psychological Association) Award for Outstanding Contributions to Psychology in the Public Interest. He recently received a 5-year Independent Scientist Award from NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health).

*Edited to define APA*

[Edited on 1-17-2005 by HarmNone]

Having spent most of life north of the 49th parallel, I was unaware that Davis was a University of California campus.

Dr Herek is in my opinion an activist. He has most certainly received awards, however If I am to examine the boards he has been on and the books he has published like Out in Force, Hate Crimes, Lesbian & gay psychology they follow one similar theme. As I stated before discrediting Dr. Cameron alone does not form an argument.

[HarmNone]

Dr. Herek's field is hate crimes, xtc. He's a research psychologist who specializes in hate crimes. Everything is not a conspiracy, and everyone who specializes in specific fields of study is not an activist. However, if you wish to continue to believe otherwise, that is your prerogative.

[xtc]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Dr. Herek's field is hate crimes, xtc. He's a research psychologist who specializes in hate crimes. Everything is not a conspiracy, and everyone who specializes in specific fields of study is not an activist. However, if you wish to continue to believe otherwise, that is your prerogative.

I have not once used the conspiracy word.

I noticed that Dr. Herek is listed on many activist sites and his field of study seems to be limited to gay issues. It amazes me how if you go follow any religion and are a scientist, psychologist, or Doctor then your religion must have influenced your research. However if you are an activist with an obvious agenda, your agenda hasn’t tainted your research and you are above reproach.

Dr. Herek coined the phrase heterosexism as “the ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatises any non-heterosexual form of behaviour, identity, relationship or community”, yet he isn’t an activist.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by xtc
blah...blah...blah......the speed at which you respond. You must live on this site.

Wow. How could anyone refute such an astute and well worded argument? :rolleyes:

Jorddyn

[Back]

Originally posted by xtc
Having spent most of life north of the 49th parallel, I was unaware that Davis was a University of California campus.

One of my ex-gfs graduated from there with a bachelor's degree in Religious Study. Davis, CA, where I lived for 3 years, is dominated by the campus, but they also have Sudwerks! Best micro-brew and sausage platters on the west coast!

[xtc]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by xtc
blah...blah...blah......the speed at which you respond. You must live on this site.

Wow. How could anyone refute such an astute and well worded argument? :rolleyes:

Jorddyn

I don't waste my time arguing with Tsa'ah when he posts such obvious taunts.

[HarmNone]

Heh. Okay, okay, xtc. Let's say that Dr. Herek is an activist (not a dreaded term in my book, but anyhooo....). At least, Dr. Herek hasn't been summarily bounced from the American Psychological Association. The American Sociological Association went on record to proclaim that Dr. Cameron is not a sociologist, and has misrepresented sociological research. They have done no such thing with regard to Dr. Herek.

Activist or not, Dr. Herek wins this one, hands down.

[xtc]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Heh. Okay, okay, xtc. Let's say that Dr. Herek is an activist (not a dreaded term in my book, but anyhooo....). At least, Dr. Herek hasn't been summarily bounced from the American Psychological Association. The American Sociological Association went on record to proclaim that Dr. Cameron is not a sociologist, and has misrepresented sociological research. They have done no such thing with regard to Dr. Herek.

Activist or not, Dr. Herek wins this one, hands down.

Not that I am overly concerned one way or another. To be honest I am killing a slow afternoon. However Dr Cameron states that he resigned from the APA and that the APA President acknowledged his resignation well before the supposed ejection.

Dr Cameron's resignation (http://www.familyresearchinst.org/APA_Resignation-letter.html)

To state that the APA supports Dr Herek currently to me is to say that he is in vogue. Had Dr Herek published such work in 1969 he would have been summarily ejected from the APA.

As I stated, I really I am not as interested in this topic as it may seem from my numerous posts. I enjoy the histrionics from the other posters here, yourself excluded of course Harm None.

[Artha]

Should we not allow women to vote?
You're on the right track.

[HarmNone]

I was aware that Paul Cameron had denied being expelled from the APA; however, it is my inclination to believe the APA and their board over the claims of one, probably rather miffed, Paul Cameron. That choice is mine, however. One is certainly entitled to believe as one wishes to believe.

The possibilty that Dr. Herek might have been expelled from the APA had he published his work in 1969 certainly exists. Thankfully, in my opinion, we have moved forward in our knowledge since 1969, and will continue to progress in the coming years toward the realization that human beings are individuals, with differing belief structures, sexual orientations, and aspirations. We do not all fit in one box. Hopefully, we never will, for that would create a very boring world. We've come some distance since 1969.

Why you exclude me from those accused of hystrionics will remain a mystery to me. Others are simply speaking their beliefs, as am I...as are you.

[GSTamral]

The term marriage is berthed from a religious institution. In the end, to call it a marriage is a slap in the face of many who are religious. A civil union, created in law by government, which allows them the same rights and privilidges, to me is perfectly acceptable. To call it marriage is not.

To call it "marriage" would slap the faith base in the face, all for the sake of a name. This, to me, is a bit arrogant. If they insist on calling it marriage, I will continue to oppose it. If they call it a civil union with all of the same rights and privilidges, I am sure it will not meet nearly the same opposition.

[Back]

There is the problem. Religion. And its not even about religious people vs. non-religious people because I know there are religious homosexuals. Its about people telling other people what they can and cannot do based on their knowing/believing/being closer to their God than someone else.

[GSTamral]

That is a true and sad reality backlash..... but reality nonetheless. Remove the word marriage, and give it the same legal priviledges, and it would not meet nearly the same opposition.

There are many people, including myself, who find nothing inherently wrong with being gay, but still choose, for the sake of society, to allow the majority to keep the sanctity of the term marriage.

[Tsa`ah]

Except that a precedent for the State to give a fuck what about the Church and the institutions recognized within does not exist.

I don't give a shit what the, or any, church finds offensive. When they submit to taxation and federal regulation, they can bitch.

Until such a time, they (the church)can fuck off. If it offends the common citizen, let them protest with their votes and taxes.

[GSTamral]

<<
Except that a precedent for the State to give a fuck what about the Church and the institutions recognized within does not exist.

I don't give a shit what the, or any, church finds offensive. When they submit to taxation and federal regulation, they can bitch.
>>

The Church probably feels the same way about you too Tsa'ah. The problem is, they have much stronger a voting voice. The government has a duty to serve the people. Often that means doing things based on popularity. For the same reason that you find Bush offensive and made a call for women to shave pubic hair in protest to Bush, something many conservatives found offensive in concept, they have every right to voice their own opinions regarding gay marriage.

They have the majority in that regard as well it seems....

[Hulkein]

<< If it offends the common citizen, let them protest with their votes and taxes. >>

They did, by outlawing same sex marriage in every state it was on the ballot.

[GSTamral]

<<
They did, by outlawing same sex marriage in every state it was on the ballot.

>>

Yeah,. that too

[Keller]

Originally posted by GSTamral
The term marriage is berthed from a religious institution. In the end, to call it a marriage is a slap in the face of many who are religious. A civil union, created in law by government, which allows them the same rights and privilidges, to me is perfectly acceptable. To call it marriage is not.

To call it "marriage" would slap the faith base in the face, all for the sake of a name. This, to me, is a bit arrogant. If they insist on calling it marriage, I will continue to oppose it. If they call it a civil union with all of the same rights and privilidges, I am sure it will not meet nearly the same opposition.

That's what I am saying. I mean, shit. All these uppity homos trying to get "married" when they should just accept their secondary-not-as-good-as-married-because-your-love-is-tainted-by-Sodomy-civil unions. If Plessy was in in this roach he'd bitch-slap Fergusson all the way back to 1896 and then we'd be back in the days of separate but equal. Or what those in Alabama refer to as "The good ol' days."

What a fucking joke. It's a joke ..... right? :rolleyes:

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by GSTamral
The Church probably feels the same way about you too Tsa'ah. The problem is, they have much stronger a voting voice.

Stronger? No. Louder? When you have a few hundred thousand bleating sheep, it's definitely loud.


The government has a duty to serve the people.

And uphold the constitution. We often forget about that thing.


Often that means doing things based on popularity. For the same reason that you find Bush offensive and made a call for women to shave pubic hair in protest to Bush, something many conservatives found offensive in concept, they have every right to voice their own opinions regarding gay marriage.

I didn't call on women to shave ... I called on everyone to shave. Get the facts straight.

The principle still stands, constitutionality vs religious imposition. What you, and many others, are calling for is a siding with a number of religious institutions at the expense of the freedoms outlined in the constitution.

If the church (Any) refuses to acknowledge the union of two same sex partners as marriage, let them. It should have zero impact on federal and state legislation.

When you bring "God" into the picture, you force theology down the throats of people who choose the right of not to believe or accept the gnostic rhetoric. Gay, straight, bi, celibate ... it doesn't matter.

Let the church goers kick their heels and snub their noses at the property boundaries ... because it should have zero impact on the world outside.


They have the majority in that regard as well it seems....

And that is currently being contested. Some of the propositions on the ballots were worded poorly and in violation of State constitution.

[Keller]

I'm taking bets on how long these new propositions last. I'm saying they get to the supreme court and are overturned in ..... >10 years.

I know, you say -- no way it'll take that long! Five years tops!

But think about it, 1986-1965 for the Niagara Movement/NAACP to overturn Plessy V Fergusson. Most of that time was spent before Marshall got the idea to try the most convincing cases as precidents. Then momentum, gravity, and a short womanizing preacher later, ta-da-- no more separate but equal. All it'll take it one or two instances of civil unions being unequal and we'll have this chapter of history behind us.

[GSTamral]

No, Keller, I am not joking. Separate but equal is not the goal. Legal equality is. People can have legal equality under different names. A person can be Asian-American, or African-American and have the same rights as someone who is just an American. Both sides can compromise and be appeased. For the same reason that you feel the constitution is the law, if the constitution were to say marriage is specifically between a man and woman, many of these people would change their argument and oppose the constitution, because in fact, it just becomes a medium by which laws are erected, even unfair ones.

We have very differing opinions when it comes to government. I believe the government exists to serve everyone, and special laws should not be put in mildly just to appease a certain group, especially if it upsets the larger one. That's not to say I oppose civil unions. While I don’t care in the end if they are made or not nearly as much as some, I agree in principle that in this day and age, we should recognize civil unions, and grant them the same persmissions and legal privilidges. But I also believe in the fact that the masses have spoken regarding this issue, and overwhelmingly so, they would find it inappropriate for the word marriage to be used in such a situation. The government has a responsibility to listen to these people as well.

I am opposed to large religious institutions more than anyone on this board. But it is utter arrogance to say that a governing body of paper, in the end, has the clear and utter say over the will of the people. The will of the people has the power to change that document. And that process is already seeing the vote.

Let them have the word marriage. Why slap it in their faces? There is nothing legally wrong with me opening up a place that sells cow dung and portable urinals and call it the Bar Mitzpoo Shalom dung and David's Star Urinal shop, and advertise it all over TV. There are a select minority of people in this country who would get an extremely lively kick out of a shop like that. The majority, however, would soon realize that my freedom of expression in naming the shop whatever I damn well pleased was not bigger than the will of the country to not spark that kind of conflict over religious ideals. Some people would defend my freedom of expression and being part of my rights in the constitution.

That is exactly what this is all about, as far as I can see. It is a war over wording. If called a civil union, it would not meet the same kind of opposition, and it would have a better chance of becoming more publicly accepted for the time being. In time, once the religious furor from the minority settles, maybe talks can initiate to give it the same name. Some people, such as myself don't care about the sanctity of the term marriage. But that's not to say I will blanketly tell anyone who does to piss off and that my own interpretation of the constitution trumps whatever voting voice they have.

But it is rare when I believe that a law must be written for a select minority of people for beneficiary purposes, especially when doing so is against the will of a larger majority of people. Something like slavery, yes. A majority of americans surveyed have no problems calling it a civil union with the same rights and privilidges. Therefore, good by my book. A vast majority, however, oppose calling it marriage. Bad in my book.

It is for the same reason that I rarely agree with a law that hampers a select group of people, even when the rest of the nation supports such a measure. Maybe one day religious fanatics will grow up and not be so opposed to the term of marriage for those individuals. That will take time and education. But until such a time is reached, the simplicity of the matter is this. The government's job is to serve the people. There is a constitution to uphold which documents the process by which this is done. But the government reports to the people, and serves the people. They must also respond and take action based on the will of the people. Slapping the largest religious organization in the country, as wrong as they may be in your opinion, is not the correct answer.

[DeV]

In summation... you don't think special laws should be put in place but either way that is exactly what will happen. Call it marriage or call it a civil union, the bottom line is that not every citizen will be happy and the government is currently taking a position they will eventually backtrack years down the line. That's ok as it's never been an easy accomplishment in making wrongs right in this country.

[GSTamral]

No, it isn't. And often the easiest way to do it is by easing it into effect, and allowing time and education to breed understanding. An instantaneous cold turkey solution, right or wrong as it may be, is never the correct solution. Especially given how strong some people feel, and the fact that the vote has proven that they were the overwhelming majority

[DeV]

Originally posted by GSTamral
No, it isn't. And often the easiest way to do it is by easing it into effect, and allowing time and education to breed understanding. An instantaneous cold turkey solution, right or wrong as it may be, is never the correct solution. Especially given how strong some people feel, and the fact that the vote has proven that they were the overwhelming majority Which is why I said: That's ok as it's never been an easy accomplishment in making wrongs right in this country.

[Keller]

Originally posted by GSTamral
No, Keller, I am not joking. Separate but equal is not the goal. Legal equality is. People can have legal equality under different names.
What a handful that is. You're not looking for separate but equal. You're looking for an equal arrangement under a different name. Ok, sorry. Different but Equal. Is that a better name for your shit-ass-stupid system of secondary-because-your-tainted-by-Sodomy-civil unions? Get a fucking clue.

And no, take a look at Brown V Board. The supreme court has already ruled we cannot have separate/different but equal.

Originally posted by GSTamralA person can be Asian-American, or African-American and have the same rights as someone who is just an American. Both sides can compromise and be appeased. For the same reason that you feel the constitution is the law, if the constitution were to say marriage is specifically between a man and woman, many of these people would change their argument and oppose the constitution, because in fact, it just becomes a medium by which laws are erected, even unfair ones.
I have no clue what you were trying to say/prove right there. Good use of the word erected though. Suffice to say that the constitution as written was a pro-slavery document. It was then amended to futher be a pro-slavery document. Was it right? Was it fixed? I fully anticipate these state laws to be pwnd by the supreme court within a matter of years. I'll take bets if you'd like.


Originally posted by GSTamralWe have very differing opinions when it comes to government. I believe the government exists to serve everyone, and special laws should not be put in mildly just to appease a certain group, especially if it upsets the larger one.

Let's see here. Article Two, Section Three of our lovely law-making parchment says it is the duty of the supreme court to extend equity (equality, for those who didn't go to Duke) to members in a controversy. Judging from Brown V Board, I wonder where the precedent will lie? No I don't, I'm being rhetorical. You're secondary-tainted-by-sodomy-civil unions will be called out for being different and therefore unequal.


Originally posted by GSTamralThat's not to say I oppose civil unions. While I don’t care in the end if they are made or not nearly as much as some, I agree in principle that in this day and age, we should recognize civil unions, and grant them the same persmissions and legal privilidges.

Awwwww, what a swell guy you are!!! You think all citizens should have equal rights. That's so cute!! I can just see you on capital hill now, "40, 50 years ago, we coulda left them homos to dry. But times are a changing. A different wind is blowing through these here Carolinian parts. It's come time to let them have their own ceremonies. We'll confer all the same rights on them, but we'll homos everywhere feel like secondary citizens because again, their love is tainted by sodomy." Where do you come up with shit like, "In this day and age it's about time." Did homosexuals not deserve the same rights 50 years ago? Or do you just think the tide is headed that way, might as well hop on the ship to see the other side?

Originally posted by GSTamralBut I also believe in the fact that the masses have spoken regarding this issue, and overwhelmingly so, they would find it inappropriate for the word marriage to be used in such a situation. The government has a responsibility to listen to these people as well.

Wrong. The government, as stated by our lovely constitution, has the responsibility to establish justice and liberty.


Originally posted by GSTamralI am opposed to large religious institutions more than anyone on this board.

Hyperbole much?


Originally posted by GSTamral But it is utter arrogance to say that a governing body of paper, in the end, has the clear and utter say over the will of the people. The will of the people has the power to change that document. And that process is already seeing the vote.

The supreme court has the pwoer to change that document. And I'm willing to put my first-born up that they will never even come half-way close to a federal ban on same-sex marriage. And these state laws that are being passed will take 10 years to be overturned. We already have a precedent. I'll take bets, anyone?



"Two sodomites getting hitched wont affect what our marriage means to me," the baptist preacher said to his wife. He continued,"

Originally posted by GSTamralLet them have the word marriage. Why slap it in their faces?
Just because their love is tainted by sodomy doesn't mean we own the word marriage."


Context is great.


........ Four redundant and long paragraphs later .......


Originally posted by GSTamralSlapping the largest religious organization in the country, as wrong as they may be in your opinion, is not the correct answer.

The religious organizations are completely right. They believe what they believe. They are religious organizations and as far as I am concerned have their own governing bodies separate from the American peoples. To adopt a rule based on their own rules would be combining church and state ... and I know I've brought the constitution up a lot, but it has a thing or two to say about that, too.

[xtc]

This issue is turning into political quick sand for Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. He heads a precariously fragile minority government. In Canada the official head of state is the Governor General, who is supposed to represent the Queen, but who was appointed by the last Prime Minister Chretien. If the current Government is unable to rule, then the Governor General can go to the opposition and ask them if they can form a coalition Government with the third party in Canada. Alternatively she can call an election. Current Prime Minister Paul Martin had said a few days ago that he is prepared to call an election "to uphold the charter of rights & freedoms" which was drafted in 1982. He quickly backed away from this statement and said he will not call an election on this issue. However public opposition to the gay marriage bill and the Liberal Government is growing. It seems this issue maybe the undoing of the current PM and his Liberal Government. Another issue has reared its head, regarding a further challenge to the definition of marriage in the form of polygamy.

Gay marriage dogs election threats dogs Paul Martin LINK (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/01/23/907345-sun.html)

MP’s get message over gay unions LINK (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/01/24/908252-sun.html)

Polygamy LINK (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e66d3daf-2e9a-467e-ba24-3098d24acb7b)

And I am including a synopsis of some research on the topic done in Holland. (which has legalised gay marriage)

[i] “At a time when parliaments around the world are debating the issue of same-sex marriage, as Dutch scholars we would like to draw attention to the state of marriage in The Netherlands. The undersigned represent various academic disciplines in which marriage is an object of study. Through this letter, we would like to express our concerns over recent trends in marriage and family life in our country.

Until the late 1980's, marriage was a flourishing institution in The Netherlands. The number of marriages was high, the number of divorces was relatively low compared to other Western countries, the number of illegitimate births also low. It seems, however, that legal and social experiments in the 1990's have had an adverse effect on the reputation of man's most important institution.

Over the past fifteen years, the number of marriages has declined substantially, both in absolute and in relative terms. In 1990, 95,000 marriages were solemnized (6.4 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants); by 2003, this number had dropped to 82,000 (5.1 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants). This same period also witnessed a spectacular rise in the number of illegitimate births--in 1989 one in ten children were born out of wedlock (11 percent), by 2003 that number had risen to almost one in three (31 percent). The number of never-married people grew by more than 850,000, from 6.46 million in 1990 to 7.32 million in 2003. It seems the Dutch increasingly regard marriage as no longer relevant to
their own lives or that of their offspring. We fear that this will have serious consequences, especially for the children. There is a broad base of social and legal research which shows that marriage is the best
structure for the successful raising of children. A child that grows up out of wedlock has a greater chance of experiencing problems in its psychological development, health, school performance, even the quality of future relationships.

The question is, of course, what are the root causes of this decay of marriage in our country. In light of the intense debate elsewhere about the pros and cons of legalising gay marriage it must be observed that there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest the long campaign for the legalisation of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends. However, there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favour of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.

In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices' has not had serious social consequences. There are undoubtedly other factors which have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.

Of more immediate importance than the debate about causality is the question what we in our country can do in order to reverse this harmful
development. We call upon politicians, academics and opinion leaders to acknowledge the fact that marriage in The Netherlands is now an endangered institution and that the many children born out of wedlock are likely to suffer the consequences of that development. A national debate about how we might strengthen marriage is now clearly in order.”

Signed,
Prof. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law, Nijmegen University
Prof. A. Nuytinck, professor in family law, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Prof. R. Kuiper, professor in philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam J. Van Loon PhD, Lecturer in Social Theory, Nottingham Trent University H. Wels PhD, Lecturer in Social and Political Science, Free University Amsterdam [i]



[Edited on 1-24-2005 by xtc]

[Keller]

You strengthen marriage by legislating that every citizen must be married by age 25 and make divorce illegal. Just make laws and codify social values. That will solve everything.

In other news ... I would like to see other national statistics. There could be a worldwide trend in modern countries. I know that the average age of marriage in America is rising as women are becoming more and more independent. I don't know how universal this is though.

Socially, we're moving forward to the point where marriage is an antiquated institution based on the coalition of power and wealth that was better suited to pre-modern society.

There is a major reasoning gap of infering a causal relationship based on, well, no evidence. They have some trends and apply their theory of homosexual marriage as the cause. To be sure, they admit this fault, but it needs to be mentioned yet again. There are a plethora of causal relationships one could draw as to why the low-countries are seeing this trend in marriage. I'm willing to bet money that they did their research backwards, starting with a conclusion and finding statistics (everyone's favorite evidence) to support their chosen conclusion.

It's definately worthwhile to think about, I just wish they had done a more thorough job in their research. I'm not convinced.