Homosexuality

[Chill Murray]

Interesting, do you have any proof of this? I have to say, my parents are straight, and my brother is gay.

...
For the record I do support gay marriage, and I have no problem with gays raising children. I was being facetious.

 

[sbc]

the bible also makes it clear that anal sex between a man and a woman is wrong. so is oral sex, for that matter. so is anything that doesnt involve you ejaculating into a woman.

but of course, no one pays attention to things like that because they LIKE getting head from a girl and they LIKE sticking it in her pooper and they LIKE masturbating. they dont like the idea of a guy fucking another guy in the ass, so thats the one that gets attention.

so really, dont use the bible as an argument unless you actively refuse to ejaculate anywhere except inside a woman's vagina. and i mean actively, not getting any action doesnt count.

In the context I was saying it in, I said that homosexual relations are a sin in God's eyes according to the Bible as are presumably the things you mentioned (although the Bible at no point states says that any of these is wrong as you have assumed)

 

[Black Leather Jacket]

A man is supposed to take the role of a man not the role of a woman.

I do not support (BAN ME PLEASE)ry of any kind.

 

[JTH]

What about your kind?

Let them do what they please, and don't generalize gays by the flamboyant sterotype you have seen on TV. A friend recently coming out has made me realize how close to home 'this' can be, and how it [mostly] doesn't change anything.

 

[Black Leather Jacket]

What about your kind?

Let them do what they please, and don't generalize gays by the flamboyant sterotype you have seen on TV. A friend recently coming out has made me realize how close to home 'this' can be, and how it [mostly] doesn't change anything.

Ive seen the real thing more than enough in Manhattan, pretty much the same as you would see on TV.

 

[Synre]

Ive seen the real thing more than enough in Manhattan, pretty much the same as you would see on TV.

I'm pretty sure you're implying that most gays are that previously mentioned flamboyant stereotype, which is a pretty impressively stupid comment even coming from someone who has previously been banned for being stupid.

 

[majesty]

A man is supposed to take the role of a man not the role of a woman.

I do not support (BAN ME PLEASE)ry of any kind.

Teifu he is alot stupider than you thought, I think.


What exactly defines 'the role of the man' now that women are active in the workforce, voting population, military ETC ETC ETC? If we're gonna talk about societal roles, lets not be narrow minded idiots.

 

[c l e a r]

yup every sin is considered equal. That means being born = autohell. This is a the basic concept of Christianity.

This is one of those things mankind should have solved years ago, but thanks Jesusland, the progress is going in a slug's pace, due to arrogance, and unwillingness to "think on your own for a change".

Marriage is not sacred, when you have divorce rates more than 50% of the time (in the states anyways), marriage is no longer fucking sacred. In fact, in some parts of the world, divorces are shunned and looked down upon. If you join someone in the hands of marriage, you better fucking stay together, or you commit a sin; in which, by commiting a sin, you go to hell (like you said, because all sins are equal.)

Yes, I know, they are different governments all together. I'm not criticizing simple folks who are Christians who just goes to church on a Sunday morning and simply uses a religion when they are lost in a point of life and whatever. But what am I talking about is those who are driven by the religion and have power to enforce this from a political standpoint.

Another thing is that humans change, the book is written by someone (someone has to have written it, right?). No one is completely unbiased, how can people present arguments from a book that is, however old it may be, to guide a person's lifestyle? It is just not possible to believe that. So, what exactly is going on?

I need to clarify the reasons why the Christian church does not allow homosexuals to marry. The reason is simply that they cannot have children, and, according to the christian church, the procreation of children is one of the ultimate goals of marriage. (That means, incidentally, that the church condemns also a normal male-female marriage who willingly never want to have kids. In fact, a heavily rephrased version of the question "are you willing to have kids?" is asked by the priest exactly before the couple are married, and if they answer 'no', then the marriage won't take place.)

Right, because the need to have children is the symbol of Christianity. If a single couple, are christian, and don't wish to have kids, you are again, commit a sin. After all, according to you, all sins are equal. It means if I chain saw murdered 50 kids, I will have atone for the same as you not having kids by going to hell. You following me?

Before I move on, I have to say that I am in fact a dreamer, believing that one's true love should be chosen by myself, a true second half (although, I might have already given up). Love should be boundless and free, and shall not be restricted to age, gender, religion or race. Although age is something sketching that still needs to deeper thought, it seems certain that your parents will always love you and that your sister will love you regardless of what they may say or do. I believe that the same thing can be done with love with another half.

So you know what, that shit won't fly with me. Don't use the bible as your counter-argument. It is a book, it is written by men for the sake of men, of that time and age. I give you this however, believe that, may be for a bit, that we are not created by mere facts of science. Perhaps this higher one gave life and gave all these things to discover, such as molecular structure, genes, elements, evolution and may be sliced bread. But I refuse the believe that any human should follow that guide to the text, and refusing that fact that things change and people change, since there is no such thing as eternal.

Why can't people think on their own?

 

[Aeolus]

I'd have to say that I'm indifferent to the idea of homosexual marriage. I think that the arguments Deck Knight has made are contrived and are a result of adherence to tradition. It is clear to me that continuing a practice simply because "it is tradition" is oftentimes the worst possible reason for continuing it.

For me, the only relevant issues that should be up for debate are those that focus on how to fix the civil union laws so that committed homosexuals aren't deprived of the rights that are available to their straight counterparts.

Almost all the real fighting that is done on this issue is about words. I doubt that many people who are against gay marriage would vehemently oppose the granting of benefits from worker's comp upon the injury or death of a partner, incidental protections given when a parter is the victim of a crime, family heath insurance, inheritance rights, etc. etc. etc. All they want is to NOT change the definition of the word marriage. I honestly think 90% of people on both sides of the issue would be satisfied if civil unions were made to look more like marriages without actually calling them that.

But like I said, I'm indifferent... and when indifferent, I would err on the side of openness, tolerance, and equal rights under the law for all citizens.

 

[ncsbert]

There is a lot of incorrect Bible in this thread. (note that being born = autohell is very correct, and must be the foundation for any lasting hope at becoming a believer and follower of Jesus)

It does seem to be the trend for some who claim to be Christian to Judas-ize homosexuals for their own prideful benefit. (i.e. we'll I'm not as bad as they are, therefore I am "more good") It saddens me to see this. = \

Most of the homosexuals I've met seem to have pasts with a lot of rejection from the opposite gender. They're also some of the nicest people I've ever met. Most tell me that the thing they love the most about the gay community is the acceptance that they've found there.

Also, I've yet to see anything to convince me that people are born homosexual, other than some very weak anecdotal evidence. However, I don't believe it is merely a "choice" that someone makes to be homosexual.

I still find it to be quite a perplexing subject all around.

 

[Dragontamer]

Right, because the need to have children is the symbol of Christianity. If a single couple, are christian, and don't wish to have kids, you are again, commit a sin. After all, according to you, all sins are equal. It means if I chain saw murdered 50 kids, I will have atone for the same as you not having kids by going to hell. You following me?

No, according to quinnydinny all sins are equal. On the other hand, the Catholic Church (X-Act appears to be a part of), clearly states differences between Venial and Mortal Sins in its Catechism.

Why can't people think on their own?

EDIT: Sarcastic points self-deleted.

Also, I've yet to see anything to convince me that people are born homosexual, other than some very weak anecdotal evidence. However, I don't believe it is merely a "choice" that someone makes to be homosexual.

There are two parallel arguments that I'm aware of on this subject, that is, they don't support each other, but they don't contradict each other either.
1. Genetics. There is some genetic evidence that there might be a homosexual gene. I actually don't really believe in this argument, but some do, so I might as well tell you about it.
Some links.
The "Gay Gene" for Fruit Flies is found

EDIT: Interesting thought: if the "Gay Gene" exists, then there is probably a reason for it. An interesting theory is like Sickle Cell Anemia, having half of the gay gene may be beneficial.

2. Chemical imbalance in the Womb. This seems more likely in my opinion. Some links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

 

[quinnydinny]

Right, because the need to have children is the symbol of Christianity. If a single couple, are christian, and don't wish to have kids, you are again, commit a sin. After all, according to you, all sins are equal. It means if I chain saw murdered 50 kids, I will have atone for the same as you not having kids by going to hell. You following me?

I have no idea where you got that from. Ever heard of Nuns or Monks.

P.S. : <<--- Thanks for the location idea

 

[Big Bayou]

I honestly don't mind if someone I know is homosexual, just as long as they don't try to "come on" to me.

I knew this one guy for like 2 or 3 years and never knew he was bisexual. It really didn't change anything, though. We're still friends.

I don't mean to pick on you here, but I just want to use what you said as an example.

The whole view of "Homosexuality is OK as long as the gays aren't trying to actively seduce me" always has seemed weird. So many people think that way and I don't understand it at all; it's just us-and-them ideology with a really stupid stereotype of "the gay recruiter" attached.

So what if some gay person tries to hit on you? Now homosexuality has intruded into some sort of sacred no-no ground? Honestly whenever I've been hit on by gay people I feel less awkward than if I'm being "come on to" by a girl- the permanent barrier of sexual orientation makes it a lot easier to bring a situation to friendlier terms.


EDIT: Anecdote time. My friend once told me that he was walking to the grocery store one morning when some hickass dude, apparently miffed at the stylish clothes my friend was wearing (New York fashion++), stumbled over and declared "I'm going to beat your (BAN ME PLEASE) ass into the ground, (BAN ME PLEASE)." The dude was observant- my friend was indeed gay -but he unfortunately failed to perceive that he was also a 2nd degree blackbelt kickboxer.

Luckily for everyone involved, the man backed down after my friend demonstrated a 360 roundhouse kick on a nearby icicle.

 

[Mist_Shinobi]

I'm all for gay tolerance and marriage, especially if, as some evidence suggests, homosexuality results from genetics and such that the person cannot change. The only big problems I have are the possible psychological effects on a kid who has parents of the same sex. But I don't really know anything about that.

 

[c l e a r]

EDIT: Sarcastic points self-deleted.

No, seriously, how fucking hard is it to think on your own, I make my own decisions because of instincts, not because some fucking book told me to think that way. Honestly, where in the fuck do anyone do wrong by liking somebody that you love and both of them acknowledge and accept it?

 

[X-Act]

Gay people are very rare in the place where i live, i personally haven't meet any

You probably HAVE met a gay person, you just didn't know he/she was gay.

i think homosexuality also depends on the place were you live

It doesn't, lol.

I always heard that roughly 10% are gay.

 

[Deck Knight]

I'd have to say that I'm indifferent to the idea of homosexual marriage. I think that the arguments Deck Knight has made are contrived and are a result of adherence to tradition. It is clear to me that continuing a practice simply because "it is tradition" is oftentimes the worst possible reason for continuing it.

Conversely, changing something just for the sake of changing it is nearly always the worst possible reason for changing it.

Btw. Clear, as much as you may think it so, "fucking" is not a sentence enhancer.

Here is a link I found earlier today, it is exhaustively long so I'll only be posting excepts.

http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

Marriage is a public institution. Consequently, proposals that could harm the institution of marriage must be subjected to the same sort of objective analysis that we give any public policy question. Marriage is not just a private matter of emotion between two people. On the contrary, its success or failure has measurable impact on all of society. Rational analysis yields solid, objective reasons for limiting marriage to one man and one woman-reasons anyone can agree with on purely secular grounds.

What kind of impact does heterosexual marriage have on society?

Recently, Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher reviewed the published literature on marriage and presented their findings in a book entitled The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.5 The evidence is clear. Married people are better off than single or divorced people. The better the marriage, the stronger the "marriage effect" on physical and mental health, longevity, and prosperity. Let's look at this in detail.

Thirty years ago, Harold Morowitz of Yale observed that divorce is as hazardous to a man's health as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.6 The same is true for women. Unmarried women are 50 percent more likely to die in any given year than are married women; unmarried men are five times more likely to die in any given year than married men at any age.7 Being unmarried shortens a man's life by ten full years.8 Marriage is a major public health issue, because its absence shortens people's lives.

Unmarried people are sick more often, stay longer in the hospital than married people with similar problems, and are two and a half times more likely to end up in a nursing home.9 Unmarried people are even several times more likely to get the common cold than are married people.10 That probably happens because unhappiness weakens the immune system.11

Scientists have shown that these health advantages are not merely accidental. Studies consistently show that marriage itself improves people's health.12 Sick people who married got healthier. Healthy people who married got healthier still. Marriage itself made the difference, and the happier the marriage, the greater the health advantage. The health benefits of marriage have been observed around the world.13

5# Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (New York: Doubleday, 2001).
6# Harold J. Morowitz, "Hiding in the Hammond Report," Hospital Practice 10 (1975): 35-9.
7# Catherine E. Ross, John Mirowsky, and Karen Goldsteen, "The Impact of the Family on Health: Decade in Review," Journal of Marriage and the Family 52 (1990): 1061.
8# Bernard L. Cohen and I-Sing Lee, "A Catalog of Risks," Health Physics 36 (1979): 707-22.
9# Howard S. Gordon and Gary E. Rosenthal, "Impact of Marital Status on Hospital Outcomes: Evidence from an Academic Medical Center," Archives of Internal Medicine 155 (1995): 2465-71.
10# Sheldon Cohen et al., "Social Ties and Susceptibility to the Common Cold," Journal of the American Medical Association 277 (1997): 1940-4.
11# Tracy Bennett Herbert and Sheldon Cohen, "Depression and Immunity: A Meta-analytic Review," Psychological Bulletin 113 (1993): 472-86; Janice K. Kiecolt-Glaser et al., "Marital Conflict in Older Adults: Endocrinological and Immunological Correlates," Psychosomatic Medicine 59 (1997): 339-49.
12# Nadine F. Marks and James D. Lambert, "Marital Status Continuity and Change among Young and Midlife Adults: Longitudinal Effects on Psychological Well-being," Journal of Family Issues 19 (1998): 652-86; Alan V. Horowitz, Helene Raskin White, and Sandra Holwell-White, "Becoming Married and Mental Health: A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Young Adults," Journal of Marriage and the Family 58 (1996): 895-907.
13# Yuanreng Hu and Noreen Goldman, "Mortality Differentials by Marital Status: An International Comparison," Demography 27, no. 2 (1990): 233-50.

What does the scientific evidence show about homosexuality?

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of diagnostic disorders. In retrospect, this decision appears to have been inspired by political pressure rather than medical evidence.

Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals47 and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.48 Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals.49 Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight.50 Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.51

Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54

47# C. Bagley and P. Tremblay, "Suicidal Behaviors in Homosexual and Bisexual Males," Crisis 18 (1997): 24-34.
48# R. A. Garofalo et al., "The Associations Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-Based Sample of Adolescents," Pediatrics 101 (1998): 895-902.
49# R. Herrell et al., Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-74; D. M. Fergusson, J. Horwood, A. L. Beautrais, "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 876-80; M. J. Bailey, "Homosexuality and Mental Illness," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 883-4.
50# P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 757-76.
51# Ibid.
52# Laura Dean et al., "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health: Findings and Concerns," Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association 4, no. 3 (2000): 101-51.
53# Ibid.
54# Ibid.

What about situations in which homosexuals adopt children or use artificial insemination?

There is almost no good data to answer this question. We know that children raised in families containing one non-biological parent are dozens of times more likely to be abused than children raised by both biological parents.63 In some studies, children raised by homosexual partners seem to suffer from sex-role confusion.64 Studies by Cameron and Cameron have shown a high incidence of incest between minor children and homosexual parents of both sexes.65 These investigators suggest that homosexual parents may be more likely to abuse their children sexually than heterosexual parents, so although the point is not definitively proven, the available evidence is worrisome.

Children raised by both biological parents are significantly healthier, happier and better adjusted emotionally than kids raised by single parents of either sex. They are less likely to live in poverty or engage in violent crime or sexual promiscuity and more likely to be successful in school, career, and marriage.66 Same-sex couples, by definition, would have at least one non-biological parent.

There seem to be good reasons that children need both biological parents. The sexes are different. Because gender is a real phenomenon, it should come as no surprise that men and women parent differently. Men and women bring different, complementary skills to childrearing. Men are more likely to play expansively with their children than to do mundane care taking; women tend to be more practical. Mothers tend to be more responsive to their child's immediate needs, while fathers tend to be more firm, more oriented to abstract standards of justice (right and wrong).67 Kids need both.

Mothers tend to emphasize the emotional security of their children, while fathers tend to stress competition and risk taking. Mothers tend to seek the immediate well-being of the child, while fathers tend to foster long-term autonomy and independence.68 Children need both parents, because they learn different lessons from each. Neither fathers nor mothers are expendable. The presence of a father is critical to a male child's learning self-control and appropriate male behavior, especially learning to respect women. Similarly, the presence of a father is vital for a female child's self-respect and eventual development of a healthy adult sexuality.69 Children need mothers just as much. The presence of both parents seems to be necessary for ideally balanced emotional and mental development.

Put in technical psychological jargon, the social science evidence suggests that women teach children communion (in English, that means the drive toward inclusion, connectedness, and relationship) and that men teach children agency (the drive toward independence, individuality, and self-fulfillment). Further, children of both sexes appear to learn self-control and responsibility primarily from their father.70 They fail to learn them when he's not involved in their lives. Our national epidemic of fatherlessness has spawned an epidemic of antisocial children.

Marriage, for all these reasons, is a major public health issue and not just a private affair. Marriages that are exclusive, permanent, unconditional, and life-giving contribute much to public health and longevity; marriages that fail any of these criteria and end in divorce create an enormous social, emotional, and health care burden for the couple, their children, and society.

44# Diana E. H. Russell, "The Prevalence and Seriousness of Incestuous Abuse: Stepfathers vs. Biological Fathers," Child Abuse and Neglect 8 (1984): 15-22; M. Wilson and M. Daly, "Risk of Maltreatment of Children Living with Stepparents," in Child Abuse and Neglect: Biosocial Dimensions , ed. Gelles and Lancaster (New York: Aldine de Gruyer, 1987), 215-32; M. Konner, "Darwin's Truth, Jefferson's Vision: Sociobiology and the Politics of Human Nature," The American Prospect 45 (1999): 30-8.
45# Judith S. Wallerstein, "The Long-Term Effects of Divorce on Children: A Review," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 30, no. 3 (May 1991): 358-9.
63# See references 44 and 45 above.
64# R. Green et al., "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison With Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children," Archives of Sexual Behavior 15 (1986): 167-83; P. A. Belcastro et al., "A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Effects of Homosexual Parenting on Children's Sexual and Social Functioning," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 20 (1993): 105-22; B. Hoeffer, "Lesbian and Heterosexual Single Mothers: Influence of Their Child's Acquisition of Sex-Role Traits and Behavior," (dissertation, University of California), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1979; D. L. Puryear, "Familial Experiences: A Comparison Between Children of Lesbian Mothers and the Children of Heterosexual Mothers," (Dissertation, University of California), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1983; J. D. Kunin, "Predictors of Psychosocial and Behavioral Adjustment of Children: A Study Comparing Children Raised by Lesbian Parents to Children Raised by Heterosexual Parents," Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (1998): (6-B), 3094; G. A. Javaid, "The Children of Homosexual and Heterosexual Single Mothers," Child Psychiatry and Human Development 23 (1993): 235-48; K. Lewis, "The Children of Lesbians: Their Point of View," Social Work 23 (1980): 198-203
65# P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," 757-66; P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents: A Comparative Forensic Study of Character and Harms to Children" Psychological Reports 82 (1998): 1155-91.
66# Waite and Gallagher, op. cit., 124-40.
67# Popenoe, op. cit., 139-63.
68# Ibid.
69# Ibid.
70# Ibid.

Yes, I realize that was tl;dr. but the whole article has a lot more info.

 

[GB_Packers_Ftw]

Seriously, there's a reason guys have cocks and chicks don't. Gay Marriage is wrong. Totaly Agree with everything deck knight (for a change perhaps :P) is saying and everything in that website

EDIT: im adding an actual argument to this

This basicly only applies to liberal christians:
Gay Marriage is a sin, its really as simple as that. That's why your not gay. If you are gay, then this doesnt apply to you obviously. If you saw someone on the street getting beat up, or some random loser picking on a little kid what are you gonna do? I'd go and show him up..wouldn't you? Ok..so then why should we feel bad for the gay people? Being gay is just as bad as bulling some random kid! Supporting gay marriage would be the equivealent of Jane Fonda going over to vietnam and sitting on thier guns. (1972 august 18th) ITS SIDING WITH THE ENEMEY. Now, I do believe that gay people are NOT our enemy, however, its just their actions. We can show them the way and get them to dig chicks. Gay Marriage is just..wrong.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Deck should research the difference between correlation and causation.

 

[chaos]

Seriously, there's a reason guys have cocks and chicks don't. Gay Marriage is wrong. Totaly Agree with everything deck knight (for a change perhaps :P) is saying and everything in that website

EDIT: im adding an actual argument to this

This basicly only applies to liberal christians:
Gay Marriage is a sin, its really as simple as that. That's why your not gay. If you are gay, then this doesnt apply to you obviously. If you saw someone on the street getting beat up, or some random loser picking on a little kid what are you gonna do? I'd go and show him up..wouldn't you? Ok..so then why should we feel bad for the gay people? Being gay is just as bad as bulling some random kid! Supporting gay marriage would be the equivealent of Jane Fonda going over to vietnam and sitting on thier guns. (1972 august 18th) ITS SIDING WITH THE ENEMEY. Now, I do believe that gay people are NOT our enemy, however, its just their actions. We can show them the way and get them to dig chicks. Gay Marriage is just..wrong.

Good to know your fluency with English is comparable to your understanding of sexual orientation... I mean, I'm not perfect either but damn at least dedicate a minute or two of your life to rereading your posts before clicking [Post Quick Reply], okay?

 

[majesty]

Supporting gay marriage would be the equivealent of Jane Fonda going over to vietnam and sitting on thier guns. (1972 august 18th) ITS SIDING WITH THE ENEMEY.

Do you even know what an analogy is? It's a wonder you can even manage to breathe. Just an FYI, referencing a date to a certain year doesn't make you carry more authority; it makes you look like a google jockeying asshole. Please do us all a favor and never post in a thread like this again.

I am unfamiliar with this part but perhaps someone could enlighten us all: What are some other everyday things that are a sin as per the bible? I'm sure we can shed some light on the hypocritical nature of calling sin on things left and right with this notion. Once we establish this, we can put people like "GB_Packers_Ftw" in their place on this matter using their own sacred book.

 

[Deck Knight]

Deck should research the difference between correlation and causation.

Amazing Ampharos should realize that's not even close to an argument, and furthermore should realize that, much as he is loathe to admit it, stating "correlation does not equal causation" is not a refutation of evidence.

Essentially what you're trying to argue (without actually putting into words because it makes you sound ridiculous) is that while homosexuality is heavily correlated with various negative effects that do not effect to the same extent what would amount to the control group, heterosexuals, is not sufficient evidence to conclude homosexuality causes those effects.

Whether homosexuality is the single cause of those effects are irrelevant. The heavy correlation indicates that changing a public policy to be more favorable to those relationships has a a high probability of inflicting more social ills on society.

While as a writer and reporter I will never say that the length of an argument dictates its weight, a single sentence is nearly always insufficient to come to any conclusion.

 

[mirza]

Personally, I don't really care what others' sexual preferences are. As for gay marriage, I'm sure it'll be legalized eventually. If straight couples can get married and not even have to love/care for each other, why shouldn't gays fighting for their rights be able to? Keep religion and politics seperate IMO, at least in democratic nations.

 

[yourDeadGrandad]

I'm against gay marriage, but not because I'm some kind of homophobe. No, I'm against marriage in general, because in today's day and age, it fails.

I'm sure I read a quote somewhere, something like, "Marriage is the worlds oldest institution"

...who the hell wants to live in an institution?! :nerd:

 

[mf]

Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals47 and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.48 Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals.49 Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight.50 Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.51

Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54

I see, so you're saying that these homosexuals (who currently are not allowed to marry) are worse-off than heterosexuals? Interesting. I wonder if there is some sort of lifestyle that promotes health and wellbeing?

Recently, Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher reviewed the published literature on marriage and presented their findings in a book entitled The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.5 The evidence is clear. Married people are better off than single or divorced people. The better the marriage, the stronger the "marriage effect" on physical and mental health, longevity, and prosperity. Let's look at this in detail.

Thirty years ago, Harold Morowitz of Yale observed that divorce is as hazardous to a man's health as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.6 The same is true for women. Unmarried women are 50 percent more likely to die in any given year than are married women; unmarried men are five times more likely to die in any given year than married men at any age.7 Being unmarried shortens a man's life by ten full years.8 Marriage is a major public health issue, because its absence shortens people's lives.

Unmarried people are sick more often, stay longer in the hospital than married people with similar problems, and are two and a half times more likely to end up in a nursing home.9 Unmarried people are even several times more likely to get the common cold than are married people.10 That probably happens because unhappiness weakens the immune system.11

Scientists have shown that these health advantages are not merely accidental. Studies consistently show that marriage itself improves people's health.12 Sick people who married got healthier. Healthy people who married got healthier still. Marriage itself made the difference, and the happier the marriage, the greater the health advantage. The health benefits of marriage have been observed around the world.13

Well, what do you know. By your correlational logic, it could easily be the absence of marriage that is a key problem for homosexual people. Of course, now you'll probably try to refute this argument by saying that the evidence only concerns heterosexual married couples but the fact is that if marriage for homosexuals was identical to that of heterosexuals, there is no reason that the above quote would not be applicable to both parties.

By the way, thanks for providing me with all the evidence I needed to make this argument. Really all anyone needs to do is read your post to counter your own argument!

I particularly enjoyed these:
- Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight
- Being unmarried shortens a man's life by ten full years

- Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals
- The better the marriage, the stronger the "marriage effect" on physical and mental health