Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 398
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    I understand you reluctance to believe my claim. I am at the beach now, but I WILL post reference later tonight or tomorrow. I would like to see you references the show it is healthy. I understand that YOU are healthy and mentally. but a mjority of the gay population is not.

    in reguards to you comment about how polygamy is different from homosexuality because polygamy is illegal. homosexuality was also illegal not so long ago in many states. so was homosexuality morally then?
    I'll answer your questions with more (as you have done) and eagerly await your promised proof.

    A woman's right to vote was illegal not so long ago...should polygamy now be made legal? They are two different issues and should be dealt with seperately. Trying to 'wed' the two issues doesn't deal with either, but is an excuse to deal with neither.

    It's rather commonly known that lesbians are in the lowest health risk group, just above those that abstain altogether. I am sure you know this and don't require proof on this point, or I suspect you know not much on the subject to begin with.

    Homosexuality has existed in nature as long as we have cared to observe it. There is no evidence that I have seen that it has been a destructive force to society in any animal kingdom.

    I still eagerly await your documentation on the many claims you have made. I have to work in a few minutes, so I am a bit jealous of your day at the beach.

    BTW I have a heterosexual friend at work. She is my favorite person to work with as well. We don't always agree with each other (not just sexuality) but we both ask questions and try to understand one another. We get along well despite (and perhaps in part because of) our differences. I just wanted you to know I have a frame of reference as well
  2. #202  
    There is much talk about reproduction and child rearing as a reason for denying homosexuals the right to marry. In the interest of fairness perhaps we should also deny sterile heterosexuals the right to marry (or adopt children).
  3. #203  
    Reason anough to ban gays:
    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33540

    Warning: This is from the satire magazine "The Onion". This article is extremely explicit and not for the prudish. Please DO NOT read the link if you are easily offended.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  4. #204  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Then who's to say that we need to "learn" to accept aberrent behavior? Indeed, if you look at the number of homosexuals compared to the population, it is undoubtedly aberrent.
    First, let's not forget that he said this.

    Second, White men marrying black women would also be "abberant behavior" according to his definition.
  5. #205  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    There's an institution that's stood for one thing for the vast majority of people throughout history.
    No it hasn't.
  6. #206  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    But; if you believe that one's sexuality is not a choice but you are born with a sexuality trait towards homosexuality and you subscribe to the theory of evolution, would that not mean that those born homosexual have not evolved to the point of being able to reproduce and along those same lines, the survival of the fittest and natural order would then weed out those who have not evolved to the point of reproduction?
    I do not subscribe to that theory, but I do not see how anyone who believes in born sexuality traits and evolution can bridge that gap.
    Possibly the worst sociocultural evolutionary argument ever made.
  7. #207  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    I can agree with you for the most part on what you're saying. I guess we differ in the way we view how much of an impact having gay parents will have on a child. If homosexuality continues to grow the way it has, we will have many many more children growing up thinking that it is perfectly normal to be a homosexual (not only the kids growing up in gay homes). We practlely encourage it already as it is. I'm just worried that the gradual blending of gender roles with really negatively affect society.

    It honestly has nothing to do with me hating homosexuals. I am tolerant of the behavior and like I said I'm friends with a guy who is in a commited gay relationship. He's actually my favorite person to work with!

    Reasons I just can't accept (and so encourage) the behavior:

    1) It is completely unhealthy (even when you factor out AIDS). This is probably due to the human body not being designed to accomodate the behavior.
    2) It has tons of negative effects on mental health....and I don't buy the argument that it is ONLY because of the way society treats them.
    3) We really have no clue what widespread acceptance of homosexuality will do to the way children develope and thus society in general.

    I do believe that the practice is immoral, but that is only because I don't think society if better off with it then without it.
    I almost don't know what to say about this, apart for hold it up for all to see.

    His views are clear and on the record.

    Let us know airman what will happen to the children of gay couples, and by the way, show us evidence of "homosexuality growing the way it has". Jesus' time would be a good starting point I would say.
  8. #208  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Is a homosexual man being denied the right to marry a woman?
    Was a black man being denied the right to marry a black woman?
  9. #209  
    I'm back, and glad to see some activity on this thread. I'm very interested in the AAP reference that you posted, when I click the link for the PDF it gives me an error. I tried to look-up the study on HubNet/Pubmed and google scholar, but was not able to get a hold of an electronic copy of the actual paper. If you could either fix the link or send me the PDF via email I would appreciate it as I am honestly interested to read it. I am in the process of gathering the references I promised, but don't really feel like getting into it tonight.(too much sun) I'll do my best to answer most of the counter arguments and post my literature sources some time tomorrow either at work (don't tell anyone) or after I get back from the gym. It's been fun (in a weird way) conversating with all of you so far
  10. #210  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    I'm back, and glad to see some activity on this thread. I'm very interested in the AAP reference that you posted, when I click the link for the PDF it gives me an error. I tried to look-up the study on HubNet/Pubmed and google scholar, but was not able to get a hold of an electronic copy of the actual paper. If you could either fix the link or send me the PDF via email I would appreciate it as I am honestly interested to read it. I am in the process of gathering the references I promised, but don't really feel like getting into it tonight.(too much sun) I'll do my best to answer most of the counter arguments and post my literature sources some time tomorrow either at work (don't tell anyone) or after I get back from the gym. It's been fun (in a weird way) conversating with all of you so far
    You are studying it now? After you already talked negatively about the fitness of gay couples as parents?
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #211  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    I'm back, and glad to see some activity on this thread. I'm very interested in the AAP reference that you posted, when I click the link for the PDF it gives me an error. I tried to look-up the study on HubNet/Pubmed and google scholar, but was not able to get a hold of an electronic copy of the actual paper. If you could either fix the link or send me the PDF via email I would appreciate it as I am honestly interested to read it. I am in the process of gathering the references I promised, but don't really feel like getting into it tonight.(too much sun) I'll do my best to answer most of the counter arguments and post my literature sources some time tomorrow either at work (don't tell anyone) or after I get back from the gym. It's been fun (in a weird way) conversating with all of you so far
    Did you use an Aquapac today?

    BTW, link is fixed.

    Full PDF Report ["The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-Being of Children"]
  12. #212  
    Physical health:

    -Homosexuality shortens the median life span by 20-30 years (study included gay man and women with AND WITHOUT AIDS)

    Source: Paul Cameron, William Playfair, and Stephen Wellum, “The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic,” Omega Journal of Death and Dying 29, 3 (1994): 249–72.

    - nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men.

    Source-"Basic Statistics," CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm.

    - gay men contracted syphilis at three to four times the rate of heterosexuals.

    Source: Catherine Hutchinson, et al., "Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics," Archives of Internal Medicine, 151: 511-516, p. 513 (1991).

    - limited list of diseases found at an increased frequency in sexually active homosexual males:

    Anal Cancer
    Chlamydia trachomatis
    Cryptosporidium
    Giardia lamblia
    Herpes simplex virus
    Human immunodeficiency virus
    Human papilloma virus
    Isospora belli
    Microsporidia
    Gonorrhea
    Viral hepatitis types B & C
    Syphilis

    Source: Anne Rompalo, "Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men," Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6): 1633-1645 (November 1990)

    I could go on with more, but I don’t want to get into specific sexual practices and their health consequences on a forum such as this.


    Mental health:

    -higher rates of psychiatric disease (including major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder) associated with same-sex sex.

    Source: Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001)
    Related to the above Dutch study: “An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands. So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.”


    Polygamy:

    The polygamist movement already has support from some of the advocates for GLB rights.

    Source: "The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections . . . ." 1992 Policy Guide of the ACLU, Policy #91, p. 175.
  13. #213  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You are studying it now? After you already talked negatively about the fitness of gay couples as parents?
    TheBlaze74: There is no reason to atack me. I was at the beach and didn't anticipate having to prepare a list or references. These are things that I have read in the past and remember ( Now I have to find them). How quickly did you want me to post sources? 30 min? 20min? 5 min? I have already dedicated a fair portion of my time debating this issue. I don't need people to jump on me for taking some time to be with my family.


    "Possibly the worst sociocultural evolutionary argument ever made"


    ok, how is it wrong?
  14. #214  
    What the carp Blaze how come you haven't backed-up your postion on the sociocultural evolutionary argument yet?

    You are probably studying it now AFTER you made the statement!
  15. #215  
    Wow it's been like 5 mins since I posted last and you still haven't responded, that must mean that I win and you loose and that you don't know anything and that you have to look up everything AFTER the fact. You are probably scarmbling to copy and paste everything you can from wikipedia. (note sarcasm)
  16. #216  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Wow. You just summed up my whole argument. You're close, shop... I feel you knocking on the door. (Pardon me for making this comparison now, Hoovs - I can't help myself) Just replace "slavery" with "Banning gay marriage" and replace the term "Africans" with "Gays", and you'll be there.
    I see much has taken place since this post, but this is where I left off last week.

    Micael,

    I'm not sure what you think I'm geting close to or on which door I'm knocking

    Where we likely part ways is that I don't see the need for establishing a new legal class in order for people who practice homosexuality to exercise their right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. In as much as historic laws banning sodomy are being repealed or simply ignored, there is no threat to life, liberty nor the pursuit of happiness.

    One could make a case that a threat to life exists from zealous individuals who take to "bashing" people. But, our laws do not condone such behavior.

    In actuality, the Consitution was enough to address slavery. No further legislation was of necessity principly. Further legislation became appropriate, practically, because some states legally classified Africans as less than human. And on that basis, they were being excluded from Constitutional legal class "All men." No such scenario exists in regards to the practice of homosexuality.

    Now, a case can be made in terms of equal treatment under the law, except the comparison of couples engaged in like-gender relationships compared to couples in opposite-gender relationships is not one of equals, most notably in terms of population growth.

    It is logical to claim equality in other regards. However, note that what ever logic is applied could and would be applied to all other consensual sexual relationships.

    Now, I am not advocating that we act in a certain way because it will open the door to other actions. I recognize the domino effect, but don't rely on that likely effect as a basis for action (or inaction). Instead, I am pointing out that no legislative action one way or the other is required to sustain inalienable rights.
  17. #217  
    aairman23 I am having great difficulty locating most (haven't found one yet) of these studies that you provided as sources. All I come up with during google searches are religious sites that cite these studies, but I have yet to find the actual study for reference. I haven't been able to look up all of them (I'm sure the CDC one can be found for example.)

    Could you provide links to the actual studies themselves, please? It's frustrating that a cite mentions a study, but the actual study itself cannot be found.

    Interesting that higher incidences of STDs are found in males in isolated studies around the 1990. This was a time when gay men were actively going in to get checked out for HIV during awareness campaigns. Men who were engaging in 'at risk' activity were encouraged to go in and get tested. I would be surprised if some of the numbers were lower at this time, as the promiscuous ones were the primary group being tested. This is a bit like using pregnant women as a test group for how many women in the US have or are planning to have children. It will skew the numbers. Still, I haven't been able to find the actual studies so as to compare against heterosexual males of the same time period.

    One of the STD's listed for men is a female contracted virus...that was funny! I really wanted more info on that study, but couldn't find it.

    When I entered the search phrases into google, all I came up with were sites with a religious bent that proclaimed why homosexuality is wrong type sites. Not exactly without an adgenda to promote. Still, I wasn't able to find an actual link to a study from those sites either.

    Sites I visited generally stated lesbians are in a lower risk group, but still may be at risk as they may have had a male sexual partner at some point. Whew. Guess I dodged a potential bullet there

    Haven't found the actual dutch study, but am interested in that as well. Every psychiatric study I saw concerning the US related to teens questioning their sexuality...and it included many heterosexual male teens whose sexuality was questioned and they were bullied...even though they are heterosexual.

    Links to these studies would be greatly appreciated! Note I have already found many counter-arguements, but I'd rather use non-biased sites with actual links to studies...they are more difficult to round up in my 20 minutes

    What is your solution to all the children not currently adopted...or being adopted by homosexual couples? That was my original question.

    Why does the concept of marriage between me and my girlfriend scare people? Would calling it something else with the same benefits be better? Please know Civil Unions are seperate and not equal (thanks Mass. for that phrase) as they do not provide over 2000 federal benefits for which marriage allows.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #218  
    Welcome back, shopharim.
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I see much has taken place since this post, but this is where I left off last week.

    Where we likely part ways is that I don't see the need for establishing a new legal class in order for people who practice homosexuality to exercise their right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
    A new legal class? I'm not getting you. I'm saying the join the same class as everyone else. Not creating a new one.
    In as much as historic laws banning sodomy are being repealed or simply ignored, there is no threat to life, liberty nor the pursuit of happiness.
    Different debate/thread. This one is about gay marraige, not the one about what goes on behind closed doors, etc.
    One could make a case that a threat to life exists from zealous individuals who take to "bashing" people. But, our laws do not condone such behavior.

    In actuality, the Consitution was enough to address slavery. No further legislation was of necessity principly. Further legislation became appropriate, practically, because some states legally classified Africans as less than human. And on that basis, they were being excluded from Constitutional legal class "All men." No such scenario exists in regards to the practice of homosexuality.
    I submit that the Constitution is enough to address gay marraige, as well. Same argument. They are being classified as 'aberrant' and excluded from, as you put it, the legal class "All men".
    Now, a case can be made in terms of equal treatment under the law, except the comparison of couples engaged in like-gender relationships compared to couples in opposite-gender relationships is not one of equals, most notably in terms of population growth.
    Hrm, interesting angle. The relationships are equal, it's the results of the coupling is different. Don't confuse the two.
    It is logical to claim equality in other regards.
    I'm talking equality of rights and privs, and you're talking equality of population growth? As far as I know, one is not an argument against the other. They are two different arguments. Please clarify.
    However, note that what ever logic is applied could and would be applied to all other consensual sexual relationships.

    Now, I am not advocating that we act in a certain way because it will open the door to other actions. I recognize the domino effect, but don't rely on that likely effect as a basis for action (or inaction). Instead, I am pointing out that no legislative action one way or the other is required to sustain inalienable rights.
    So you're arguing against doing anything... because there's no precedent?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #219  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    but if so and you believe in evolution, then what happened to the survival of the fittest, this inability to reproduce would seem to stop the evolution.
    I had to jump in to this. If you think about that actual unit of evolution, it is the gene, not the individual. Thus, it is not important that an individual reproduces, only that the genes do. Now, when you realize that you share 50% of your genes with your siblings/mother/father, imagine this scenario: a gay man does not reproduce, but helps his brother/sister/mother/father successfully have 4 more children rise to breeding age. In this case, an average of 2 of the gay man's genes have now been passed on without him ever having fathered a child. A simple example, true, but just goes to show that it isn't as simple as what you laid out.
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #220  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    My evolutionary bio teacher "claims" that this argument is not valid since society "scares" homosexuals into heterosexual relationships in which they pass on their "supposed" "gay-trait" to their children........... They probably then go on to cheat on their wives with other men and destroy both their spouse and childs life. Honestly, I don't really think this makes sense, but I thought I might play devils advocate for a bit
    Is there any evidence for you teacher to point to that shows the homosexual trait/gene is passed from generation to generation? Is this now being compared to alcholism where you are predisposed to being homosexual if you dad is?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions