12 reasons same-sex marriage will destroy our great Society

[Neutrino]

Yes. Changing from woman and man to man/man woman/woman is quite an alteration.

It's not being "changed." It's being added too. The marriage between a man and women would not be altered in any way. There would be gay marriage and there would be straight marriage. One does not affect the other. So nothing is being "altered."

One side is preventing the other from using the word marriage.

True, along with the rights that go along with it.

The other is willing to completely alter a tradition that millions hold dear.

That is completely false. As I said above nothing is being altered. The marriage of Bob and Joe does not affect the marriage of Jack and Jill and any way, shape, or form.

 

[seinfeldrules]

So nothing is being "altered."

How so? If it is added to, it is being altered. Take some dirt, put it in water. Was it altered?

 

[Neutrino]

How so? If it is added to, it is being altered. Take some dirt, put it in water. Was it altered?

Explain to me how straight marriage would be altered by gay marriage. How would it change? What exactly would be different about a man and a women getting married? How would the marriage of "jack and jill" be lessed by the marriage of "bob and joe"?

That's right it wouldn't be. Thus it is not altered.

Saying gay marriage alters traditional marraige is like saying two atheists getting married alters christian marriage. They are seperate things under the same name. They do not affect one another.

 

[HunterSeeker]

Traditions are usually not stupid, but making traditions LAW is.

 

[Neutrino]

Take some dirt, put it in water. Was it altered?

Gays aren't dirt.

Anyway, your analogy is faulty. A better one would be this:

Consider an apple (Straight, traditional marriage) sitting in a bowl (representing the idea of marriage). Now take another apple (Gay marriage) and put it in the same bowl. You have now added something to the idea of marriage.

Was the first apple changed in any way?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Why don't we just call it Garriage? :\

First: I am close to crying tears of joy at how this thread has, in flagrant defiance of normal forum law, gone from flaming to civilised discussion. It's staggering! Threads like this normally descend into a horrible mess, not the other way round. I can only assume its because everyone has gone to bed. Anyway.

Gay marriage: I can't quite see why a different term is needed. Definitions of words change all the time. The word 'gay' used to simply mean 'happy'. And while marriage may be an old tradition, traditions also change. On the other hand, I can see why seperating gay marriage and straigh marriage (or union, or whatever) might cause problems.

 

[Styloid]

I don't think this kind of battle will ever end because the final answer (if there is one) is to the question: is homosexuality right? This leads to a lot of related questions. Is there a judgement of souls in the afterlife (or an afterlife at all) and will homosexuality be held against a person? Is homosexuality something involuntary and unalterable or something that can be changed? Are there repercussions to a gay lifestyle?.. I don't think any of these questions can be fully answered and yet they are vital to our decisions on this issue.

From my point of view, I've heard a lot of conflicting information based on research about homosexuality/sexuality-- that it's a biological process to thin out the population, that it has a genetic basis, that it's caused by upbringing, that many case studies show gay people can change etc... honestly, I can't make up my mind on what to think. I just know that it does not help anybody when the two sides antagonize each other; both sides feel they have their reasons and evidence. No person should be condemning homosexuals/gay marriage supporters for their immoral "choices" just as no person should be calling people against gay marriage ignorant or fanatical or the like. I hate to give such an on-the-fence contribution but... oh well.

 

[bliink]

I don't think this kind of battle will ever end because the final answer (if there is one) is to the question: is homosexuality right? This leads to a lot of related questions. Is there a judgement of souls in the afterlife (or an afterlife at all) and will homosexuality be held against a person? Is homosexuality something involuntary and unalterable or something that can be changed? Are there repercussions to a gay lifestyle?.. I don't think any of these questions can be fully answered and yet they are vital to our decisions on this issue.

From my point of view, I've heard a lot of conflicting information based on research about homosexuality/sexuality-- that it's a biological process to thin out the population, that it has a genetic basis, that it's caused by upbringing, that many case studies show gay people can change etc... honestly, I can't make up my mind on what to think. I just know that it does not help anybody when the two sides antagonize each other; both sides feel they have their reasons and evidence. No person should be condemning homosexuals/gay marriage supporters for their immoral "choices" just as no person should be calling people against gay marriage ignorant or fanatical or the like. I hate to give such an on-the-fence contribution but... oh well.

Eventually humans will "get over it", but very slowly, same as with men and women, and people of different colours.

 

[Styloid]

Eventually humans will "get over it", but very slowly, same as with men and women, and people of different colours.

But the question here is: should we get over it? I mean, what if there is some kind of retribution or punishment for being gay (think outside of your personal norm if you have to)?

The problem is that as of right now we can't know because research on this topic can be so biased. We have scientists like LeVay who is homosexual himself and who admitted to being slightly biased in his research and whose findings that gay men may have a differently sized neuron cluster in their hypothalamus is used widely in pro-homosexual media. On the other hand there are researchers like Robert Spitzer who is a Jesuit christian and his studies show gay men and women can change their lifestyle and actually become less depressed in doing so.

These are certainly extreme cases but I find the whole issue very confusing and I'm not so sure that we all should be so certain that what we think is best.

 

[bliink]

But the question here is: should we get over it? I mean, what if there is some kind of retribution or punishment for being gay?

I doubt it. Strongly. They arent hurting people, so why would there be punishment?

there are researchers like Robert Spitzer who is a Jesuit christian and his studies show gay men and women can change their lifestyle and actually become less depressed in doing so.

gay people are depressed?

These are certainly extreme cases but I find the whole issue very confusing and I'm not so sure that we all should be so certain that what we think is best.

I say, people need to learn to sacrifice a bit of comfort so that others can be happy.
People take too much from others, if only people gave more of themselves, and their understanding, the world would be much better

 

[Neutrino]

On the other hand there are researchers like Robert Spitzer who is a Jesuit christian and his studies show gay men and women can change their lifestyle and actually become less depressed in doing so.

I'm sorry, but he's a crackpot. Studies have been done on so called programs that "cure" gays. The success rates are somewhere around 0.4 percent, which is meaningless.

Sorry if I'm a bit blunt, but those programs just make me sick. Can't stand them.

 

[bliink]

Sorry if I'm a bit blunt, but those programs just make me sick. Can't stand them.

Ohhh.. are you talking about those schemes that are essentially brainwashing? where they "cure" it similarly to the way they "cure" the guy in a Clockwork Orange?

 

[qckbeam]

..researchers like Robert Spitzer who is a Jesuit christian and his studies show gay men and women can change their lifestyle and actually become less depressed in doing so.

Being gay often dose cause depression in people, but it's not actually because the person is gay; it’s to do with the way they either have to hide their true selves from the people they love and live a sort of double-life, one being a public facade, the other being a totally private and lonely existence. Because of the homophobia that is quite alive in society today people who realize they are gay may feel intense shame for being so, or if they are past that and open about, are often treated very poorly by others for admitting it.

As to what causes homosexuality:

1) It's not a black and white issue. It's most likely part genetics, part environment. To be quite honest the whole "It's a choice" argument is lost on me. Realizing at 7 or 8 years old that there is a word to go along with the feelings you have for the same-sex (which is the way many, many people come to realize they are gay) doesn't sound like a choice to me at all.

2) Who cares? Even if a person could choose their own sexuality, why would that choice be anyone else’s business?

Edit: On second thought, I'd like to comment on one of the techniques used to "change" someone’s sexuality. A church offered to help a man regain his standing within their community by changing him from a homosexual to a heterosexual. This man had been raised to be ashamed of who he was, and was cast out by his family. Desperate he followed their instruction. He went to a store and bought gay pornography. He brought it to the church. They took him to a back room, attached electrodes to his testicles, and shocked him while they made him watch the porn. These are some of things done to “change” people.

 

[bliink]

2) Who cares? Even if a person could choose their own sexuality, why would that choice be anyone else’s business?

Not only that, but why should people be concerned? its not like it will cause the human race to die out.
Its just intolerance and selfishness.

 

[Neutrino]

Ohhh.. are you talking about those schemes that are essentially brainwashing? where they "cure" it similarly to the way they "cure" the guy in a Clockwork Orange?

Ah, finally found the link I've been searching for. This is where I've gotten a lot of info on the subject.

These are the types of programs I was talking about:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_repar.htm

Here's something about Dr. Robert Spitzer:

Dr. Spitzer study: Dr. Robert Spitzer is a psychiatry professor at Columbia University. He conducted a study of 143 ex-gays and 57 ex-lesbians who report that they have become "straight." 8,9 He reported his findings at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association on 2001-MAY-9. He concluded, as a result of 45 minute interviews with each subject, that 66% of the males and 44% of the females had arrived at "good heterosexual functioning." It is important to realize that the subjects in this study did not end up with a heterosexual sexual orientation; almost all report that they are currently bisexual.

Unfortunately, there appear to be serious flaws in the study, and in its reporting in the media.

The most serious deficiency is that 43% of the subjects were referred to Dr. Spitzer by conservative Christian ministries. Another 23% were referred by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). These individuals seem to have been hand-picked from a much larger number of bisexuals and homosexuals in therapy. As David Elliot, spokesperson for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said, "The sample is terrible, totally tainted, totally unrepresentative of the gay and lesbian community."

No information source that we have been able to find described the original sexual orientation of the subjects. We suspect that most or all had a bisexual orientation and engaged in at least some homosexual activity. After therapy, we suspect that they remain bisexual.

More details on this study

 

[bliink]

Ah, finally found the link I've been searching for. This is where I've gotten a lot of info on the subject.

These are the types of programs I was talking about:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_repar.htm

errr

medical researchers attempted to change sexual orientation through psychotherapy, aversion therapy, nausea producing drugs, castration, injections of estrogen, LSD, hypnosis, electric shock, brain surgery, breast amputations, etc

thats twisted.
Like I said, people hate eachother, some people just have no idea, no comprehension of what really matters.

 

[Neutrino]

errr



thats twisted.
Like I said, people hate eachother, some people just have no idea, no comprehension of what really matters.

Ya, it's pretty sick.

 

[gh0st]

Thats pretty extreme.

 

[bliink]

maybe some electroshock might "cure" those "scientists" lol

 

[Tr0n]

maybe some electroshock might "cure" those "scientists" lol

Screw that...just kill'em and get it over with.

 

[bliink]

Screw that...just kill'em and get it over with.

lol.. what did you think I meant by "electroshock"?

 

[Tr0n]

lol.. what did you think I meant by "electroshock"?

Sorry...I'm not really thinking straight right now.My left ear is swelling up....it hurts like hell and my head is in a lot of pain.

 

[bliink]

Sorry...I'm not really thinking straight right now.My left ear is swelling up....it hurts like hell and my head is in a lot of pain.

hmm... maybe some electroshock can fix that!

 

[Tr0n]

hmm... maybe some electroshock can fix that!

Please do it. ;(

 

[seinfeldrules]

Gays aren't dirt.

Neutrino, it was an analogy bud. Even the SATs use em.

Consider an apple (Straight, traditional marriage) sitting in a bowl (representing the idea of marriage). Now take another apple (Gay marriage) and put it in the same bowl. You have now added something to the idea of marriage.

But to be another apple, it would have to be the same thing. It isnt. Consider an apple (Straight, traditional marriage) sitting in a bowl (representing the idea of marriage). Now take an orange (Gay marriage) and put it in the same bowl. You have now added something to the idea of marriage.
Exactly. Instead of the same fruit, they are two different fruits. Each with their own unique attributes, and detriments, that sets them apart

First: I am close to crying tears of joy at how this thread has, in flagrant defiance of normal forum law, gone from flaming to civilised discussion. It's staggering! Threads like this normally descend into a horrible mess, not the other way round. I can only assume its because everyone has gone to bed.

And seinfeld was apart of it, thus proving that it wasnt himself causing the whole thread to fall to shit. Anyways, enough of my juvenille bitching.

This whole 'treatment' to cure gays from being gay is just sick. Let them be their own person.

 

[JNightshade]

Odd how we use fruit in our analogies to gay marriage. I wonder, would Freud would have something to say about this? I guess that the fight over the terminology (marriage vs. civil union vs. "garriage" vs. whatever) doesn't bother me as much as the denial of the actual rights. Still, I'd love for there to be complete equality. We need the homosexual equivalent of MLK! Someone who can truly stand up for the fight, and symbolize the movement.

 

[Thadius Dean]

seinfeld, even if an orange is added, does it affect the apple at all? they may be different but heck, blacks and whites are just about as different as gays and straits.

 

[JNightshade]

the way I see it, diversity is good. A world made of apples gets boring pretty damn quickly. However, a bowl with apples, and oranges, and grapes, and pears, and whatever the **** is out there, is waaay better. Woo fruit salad!

 

[burner69]

But to be another apple, it would have to be the same thing. It isnt. Consider an apple (Straight, traditional marriage) sitting in a bowl (representing the idea of marriage). Now take an orange (Gay marriage) and put it in the same bowl. You have now added something to the idea of marriage.
Exactly. Instead of the same fruit, they are two different fruits. Each with their own unique attributes, and detriments, that sets them apart.

OK, gay marriage fits into the definition of marriage except for one thing - it's between two people of the same sex. So rather than being an orange, it'd be a different apple.

So we've got our fruit bowl with a nice rosy red apple representing marriage, then along comes a shiny green gay marriage apple - in it goes and.... people ban it :S And force gay people to put an orange in a different bowl. Now, oranges are all nice, but seeing as the tasty greengay marriage apple has done no harm, and only made the fruit bowl no longer only a red-apple bowl, naturally homosexuals are annoyed that they are having their fruit stripped off them for no reason.

OK, enough of fruit - that's a total blag this time in the morning.

 

[Hapless]

It won't hurt me directly, or indirectly- probably not you either; so why does it matter?
It wouldnt matter to me even if I did have to suffer a little so others could be much happier.

Marriage is far more powerful as a _universal_: something that everyone can aspire to

Oh, and by the way, a man has married his CAR in America before.
And you've got a problem with two human beings?

They're part of the planet, and they want to be accepted into society

so why dont we extend the meaning of the word to a union between 2 people then?

THE REASON THAT HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY IS BECAUSE THEY ARE IN LOVE.

Not only that, but why should people be concerned? its not like it will cause the human race to die out.
Its just intolerance and selfishness.

Moral values is a pretty f*cking stupid reason.

So the general consensus is that as long as two people love each other, tradition be damned? Is that the conclusion I should draw from this thread so far?

Me puts on devil's advocate hat...........

Then am I to also conclude that none of you will have a problem with the subject of this article?

But Hapless, that's illegal! It's wrong! It's sick! Those kinds of people need help. Absolutely disgusting! That has nothing to do with this topic. You should be banned for even thinking that! CAN WE GET A MOD IN HERE FOR PETE'S SAKE???!

Well, AnOff, aren't you basing your statement that it's wrong and sick on your own moral judgment? Who are you, really, to impose your moral values on someone else. Especially when you consider the wide range of values represented here. Arbitrary laws guided by differing moral codes and traditions. Really, what's so wrong, after all they love each other don't they?

Let's not forget that in the not so distant past, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness by the APA. Neither let us forget that the physical act of homosexuality (that referred to as Sodomy) was illegal in most States until very recently. What brought about the slow acceptance of homosexuality? Lot's of activism. First demonstrating in protest, demanding that the APA remove homosexuality from the list of mental illness, which resulted in the capitulation of the APA round about 1973. Simultaneously, holding annual parades and marches, forcing those opposed to homosexuality to confront thier prejudices. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it," I believe is the chant. Meanwhile, gay rights leaders floated figures and statistics from a study published by a Dr. Kinsey, published in 1948, which purported that 10% of the population was, in fact homosexual. That's in significant contrast to this. Scroll down to the results section. The surest way to make politicians sit up and take notice of an issue is to convince them that a significant number of voters fall into a category affected by that issue. Another strategy still in use is to compare the gay rights struggle with the civil rights movement. Poking at a nation's sore spot is a good way to get the populace to think. Gradually, the homosexual community wore away the mainstream until today homosexuality is celebrated in the media(Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, et al.) and the only real obstacle to full gay acceptance is the inability to marry.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Hap, but what does this have to do with that other issue you raised? I fail to see your point.

Vis a vis the above short history of gay rights, it's already started. And I swear I saw one of our very own forumites post something in this or another thread which was extremely suspect with regard to the main issue I have raised in this post. Mysteriously, that post seems to have disappeared.

/me takes off devil's advocate hat.

So what's my point? Draw your own conclusions. Take the whole post, including quotes from other posters in this thread, into consideration. Yes, I am aware that the first link in this post isn't entirely supportive of my point. However, it is the first step on a slippery slope.

Now, if you will excuse me, my Google is in serious need of washing after this post.

 

[bliink]

......

Then am I to also conclude that none of you will have a problem with the subject of this article?

In a gay relationship, noone is being exploited, or having their young minds warped (in any more than a straight-relationship) such as would happen in a case of child abuse. They are VERY different things, to compare them is ludicrous

 

[Hapless]

In a gay relationship, noone is being exploited, or having their young minds warped (in any more than a straight-relationship) such as would happen in a case of child abuse. They are VERY different things, to compare them is ludicrous

/me puts devil's advocate hat back on

Really? Are you sure? Did you read all the links I posted? Sounds like someone's moral values are getting in the way of their ability to reason.... What was that again about not harming you directly or indirectly?

/me removes devil's advocate hat

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

You make it seem like gays are being in any way looked down upon by either seinfeld or myself... we dont have any kind of motive for that, its simply illogical. Theres no prejudice, or bias going on.

Eeek, well I didnt mean to say it quite like that at all. I was talking more about experience with people I have met/talked to.


No offence was meant in that post.


This is why I dont like posting in the politics forum.... lol

 

[burner69]

So the general consensus is that as long as two people love each other, tradition be damned? Is that the conclusion I should draw from this thread so far?

Me puts on devil's advocate hat...........

Then am I to also conclude that none of you will have a problem with the subject of this article?

Well, AnOff, aren't you basing your statement that it's wrong and sick on your own moral judgment? Who are you, really, to impose your moral values on someone else. Especially when you consider the wide range of values represented here. Arbitrary laws guided by differing moral codes and traditions. Really, what's so wrong, after all they love each other don't they?

Let's not forget that in the not so distant past, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness by the APA. Neither let us forget that the physical act of homosexuality (that referred to as Sodomy) was illegal in most States until very recently. What brought about the slow acceptance of homosexuality? Lot's of activism. First demonstrating in protest, demanding that the APA remove homosexuality from the list of mental illness, which resulted in the capitulation of the APA round about 1973. Simultaneously, holding annual parades and marches, forcing those opposed to homosexuality to confront thier prejudices. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it," I believe is the chant. Meanwhile, gay rights leaders floated figures and statistics from a study published by a Dr. Kinsey, published in 1948, which purported that 10% of the population was, in fact homosexual. That's in significant contrast to this. Scroll down to the results section. The surest way to make politicians sit up and take notice of an issue is to convince them that a significant number of voters fall into a category affected by that issue. Another strategy still in use is to compare the gay rights struggle with the civil rights movement. Poking at a nation's sore spot is a good way to get the populace to think. Gradually, the homosexual community wore away the mainstream until today homosexuality is celebrated in the media(Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, et al.) and the only real obstacle to full gay acceptance is the inability to marry.


Vis a vis the above short history of gay rights, it's already started. And I swear I saw one of our very own forumites post something in this or another thread which was extremely suspect with regard to the main issue I have raised in this post. Mysteriously, that post seems to have disappeared.

/me takes off devil's advocate hat.

So what's my point? Draw your own conclusions. Take the whole post, including quotes from other posters in this thread, into consideration. Yes, I am aware that the first link in this post isn't entirely supportive of my point. However, it is the first step on a slippery slope.

Now, if you will excuse me, my Google is in serious need of washing after this post.

What? You're comparing paedophilia and child exploitation with homosexuality. Don't you think you might be a little deluded here?
Who am I to impose my moral values on other people? When nobodys being harmed; as in homosexual relationships, nobody.

Tradition be damned? Er... yes. A few hundred years ago we believed that menstrating women were possessed by devils. Is there a reason that's no longer 'tradition' - yes, of course there is. Rather than just saying 'tradition be damned' why don't you actually look at the so called tradition, and realise its just bigotry wrapped up in a religious dressing and served by a**eholes.

So you're saying you believe that homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry because they had to protest to be recognised?! What's that all about? Do you, then, believe that blacks should give up their bus seats to whites, use different toilets etc - because they had to protest to get their rights.

 

[Hapless]

What? You're comparing paedophilia and child exploitation with homosexuality. Don't you think you might be a little deluded here?
Who am I to impose my moral values on other people? When nobodys being harmed; as in homosexual relationships, nobody.

Tradition be damned? Er... yes. A few hundred years ago we believed that menstrating women were possessed by devils. Is there a reason that's no longer 'tradition' - yes, of course there is. Rather than just saying 'tradition be damned' why don't you actually look at the so called tradition, and realise its just bigotry wrapped up in a religious dressing and served by a**eholes.

So you're saying you believe that homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry because they had to protest to be recognised?! What's that all about? Do you, then, believe that blacks should give up their bus seats to whites, use different toilets etc - because they had to protest to get their rights.

Did I say any of that? Did I indicate anywhere in that post what my beliefs were regarding gay marriage? Perhaps you should read the ENTIRE post, links included, before immediately reacting to what you perceive to be bigotry. You are proving my point.

 

[CptStern]

Then am I to also conclude that none of you will have a problem with the subject of this article?

too bad stats show that less than 1% of pedeophiles identify themselves as homosexual ...an overwhelming amount say they are heterosexual

 

[Kyorisu]

Straight Marriage and Gay Marriage are two different things yet the same.

One between a man and a women. The other between two men.

How are you upsetting the straight crowd?

So marriage started as a religous ceremony. So what? things change over time why can't religion accept that? You can still hold onto your precious ideals of marriage being the joining of a man and a women.

Yikes look up the definition of the word.

A common-law marriage.The ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created.

Stop bannin gay marriages. Theres nothing wrong with them.

 

[Hapless]

too bad stats show that less than 1% of pedeophiles identify themselves as homosexual ...an overwhelming amount say they are heterosexual

That's nice. Doesn't have anything to do with my post, but it's nice to know. The example I posted involved neither a homosexual adult nor a same-sex relationship. Surely you, of all people, can see the point I'm attempting to make.

 

[CptStern]

That's nice. Doesn't have anything to do with my post, but it's nice to know. The example I posted involved neither a homosexual adult nor a same-sex relationship. Surely you, of all people, can see the point I'm attempting to make.

ya sure something about how pedophiles will one day be accepted just as homosexuals are today :upstare:

 

[Hapless]

ya sure something about how pedophiles will one day be accepted just as homosexuals are today :upstare:

Oh, was that it? Hmm...nope, try again. Hint: Look at the quotes I used from other people in this thread.

And oh yeah.....you can't deny it could be happening..... :cheese: