Gay Marriage

The manufacture of child porn harms children. That is why it's illegal, not because it is distasteful. Also, incest is illegal because it harms children, since inbred children often suffer from genetic deformities. In fact, the majority of incest laws in this country simply prohibit vaginal intercourse, and do not proibit other forms of intercourse such as oral or anal sex.

 

Actually it quite easy. Why would anybody choose to be a homosexual with the amount of stigma, both legal and extra-legal attached to it?

My body is structured in such a way that I should find celery nutrious yet I can't stand the stuff. Instead, because it pleases me, I eat what gives me pleasure, which is wolfing down bean burritos at Taco Bell. Am I immoral for not liking my vegetables? Gay sex does not deprive any non-consentual person of life, liberty or property through force or fraud and is an activity that gay men who engage in it find mutually benefitial. This is based on MY logically derived moral principals. IF you don't like it don't do it. Otherwise it is you who are forcing your morals on others.

That's right it isn't supposed to be based on ethics. That's why the APA changed it. NPR's This American Life did a special on it. The organization relized that the whole idea of labeling homosexuality a disease and even the very definition of the word "disease" was a social construct. The only objective thing that could be concluded about homosexuality was that it was not a choice and that it deviated from the sexuality of most peole. The question as to whether it was something that required a cure was beyond the scope of the field. If someone has a "disease" and they're ok with it, how can it really be a disease? A question like that is an ethical one and not something that should be in the DSM.

What it is telling of is that the scientific community agrees that homosexuality is not a choice, nor is it a disease, which was the point I meant it to respond to.

No its not. How many times does this moral equivalence need to be debunked in this thread? Incest and pedophillia have far different consequences than homosexuality and they are not consentual.

I pretty much quit reading here. Now you're just pushing ignorant talking points. That's a stereotype and a false one at that. Have you ever actually met a feminist? in person? and not one of the silly people in their first year of women's studies? I'd say most of the members of our own women's issues forum are pretty reasonable. Even on the things I disagree with them on such as due process in rape cases, you just gotta understand where they are comming from.

 

squeemish rednecks

 

Jiimaan, this is simply not true. There is growing evidence which suggests homosexuality is either biological or genetic. The evidence is still inconclusive, but there is no conclusive evidence suggesting otherwise, either. I think we should move away from the nature v nurture debate, as it is really useless. Either way, individuals have little if any decision making in regards to their own sexuality.

Simon LeVay is a scientist that has studied the biology of sexual orientation extensively. For more info on his studies, CLICK HERE.

 

I agree that personal attacks are useless and counterproductive. I also enjoy (mostly) debating with Huck. I am impressed at how quick he can produce sources. I urge caution, however, with his sources. They are almost all exclusively from sites promoting religious study and morals, which brings the motives of the authors, editors, and publishers into question. I am not saying that his links are invalid, but they should be examined very closely, because their is no obvious indication that they are truly objective, meaning based on scientific study and empirical data, or reviewed in scholarly journals.

 

jiimann/iiaajmn, you keep repeating this, but you have not yet given a valid argument. Incest and child pornography is not a part of a healthy, loving, CONSENSUAL relationship, both by definiton and by the nature of the behavior. Homosexuals are just as capable as heterosexuals in maintaining healthy, loving, CONSENUAL relationships.

 

But cannot a bother and a sister have a "healthy, loving, CONSENSUAL relationship"? Cannot a man and a fourteen year-old girl have a "healthy, loving, CONSENSUAL relationship"? In fact, it was quite commonplace for what we term "pre-teens" to marry adults and raise families, and the only reason why it doesn't happen now is because our social mores, not because it can't be "healthy, loving, CONSENSUAL". Oh, and aren't polygymous relationships "healthy, loving, CONSENSUAL"?--well, evidently it's quite illegal to have more than one wife, yet it occurs, and many of the people involved in that lifestyle will tell you that they see nothing wrong with it.

 

The evidence is inconclusive and probably always will be. Unfortunately, scientists can be bought, and if a scientist knows that he can gain fame and fortune by advocating a certain conclusion, then s/he'll do it. The government routinely employs such "scientists" for environmental assessments, for example, and they'll say just about anything they're paid to say. You know, like build a dam won't ruin a river's ecosystem, drilling for oil in sensitive ecosystems won't have a negative impact--those kinds of scientistic facts. So it's not surprising that someone will come out and say that there's a biological basis for homosexuality, because he knows that the gay "community" wants to hear such things.

 

Jiimaan, your incest argument has been discussed here and on the the other thread ad nauseum. I have also given my opinion on polygamy, but I do not know enough about polygamy to make any real case about it either way. What evidence do you have that shows a relationship between incest, polygamy, child porn, and acceptance of homosexuals? You have not provided any, only the "simple truths" known to jiimaan.

 

I just plain can't understand where you get your information from. Most of the tim you are making statements that are so far a field that I am astounded that anyone would attempt to state them in a supposedly intelligent conversations. If you aren't gay how could you possibly know if it is some kind of choice or not? Sure we all have choices as to if we act on our feelings or not but I for one could not repress the fact that I was bi. It kept coming up for me. I did try but it just plain wasn't possible. I think that is why so many people discover that they are GLBT after they have long established relationships with opposite sex partners, Every one I have known that has done that actually was fighting the feeling for a long time but realized that they just weren't being true to themselves or anyone around them. I suppose you may say that they could have chosen to deny their feelings but to continue to do so would be lying which according to all information I have is against the belief of most religions.

Since you like wide sweeping generalizations I'll put it this way. If, as you say, we should consider sexual relations on where one part fits into another you automatically have a major fallacy in your statement. I know for a fact that mouths as well as anus's are quite capable of receiving male genitalia. It seems that the fit is so good that it must be normal to copulate in that manner. The placement of the prostate just by the rectum could allude to nature expecting it to be massaged especially when you consider that draining the prostate through such manipulation is one of the best ways of relieving prostatitis, I have heard it may help prevent it. In fact before 1960 when drugs were found to help it was the only method that Doctors used in many cases it was enough to cure it entirely. I am only talking about as you seem to m2m same sex relations. You haven't mentioned lesbian sex at all. Is that OK with you? Are you one of those creepy guys who would love to watch two lesbians going at it or even better having a threesome with them?

It just so happens, that it had little to do with public pressure. I read many articles on this & the reason that they changed their mind on this is because they realized that they were wrong in thinking that same sex relationships was a psychological disease. At the time they made this change of policy there was little public pressure to accept same sex relationships. You really have to do your homework better.

Oh, you do get around to talking about lesbians. You still didn't mention anything about their sexual practices so I guess that's still OK with you as long as they stay in their homes & don't make any noise. Gosh, this sounds quite a bit like you think they shouldn't be seen or heard. You said you didn't think women should be chattel. As for lesbians trying to convert people to being gay just what is your source of information? It isn't even logical. Where have you seen this? Have any other members of this forum ever seen that? If you were to say that gays were to want people to be gay that would make a little sense it would give more possible partners. I have never seen one lesbian try to convert anyone to anything. Well there was a woman I ran into who claimed that she used to be a lesbian but saw God & she was trying to convert me to be a born again xtian does that count?

 

i honestly dont see what the big deal with gay marriage is...who cares what they themselves do? Gay adoption is another thing though...

 

Photogra1, jiimann/iiaajmn is just caught up in the standard cliche` demonization & villification of people who are different than him. Reallity, fact, scientific data mean nothing to him. We should pity him, he knows no better.

 

Why? The kids are better off in an orphanage? Gay parents will molest children of the same sex? Gay parents are not capable of loving children? Gay parents could only raise gay children?

Give me a break...!

Who's interests are you looking out for by prohibiting gay adoptions? It is certaintly not that of the children.

 

Most adoption agencies have long waitlists for people who want to adopt. It's not like the country is teaming with homeless kids that desperately need to be adopted. Perspective parents can often wait YEARS to adopt.

I think the mother/father standard is ideal in raising a kid. I think both sexes play an important role in the development of a child.

Stop throwing baseless questions out as a means to slander me. I said nothing of the sort.

 

my view on gay marriage is that gay marriage should not be recognised by the government, However, I also believe that straight marriage should not be recognised by the government either. marriage is a religious institution, so I say out with marriage, and bring in civil unions for everyone.

Now, religious folk could get married at a church or other religious institution, but they'd also be wanting to make a civil union. And i'd have civil unions available for any relationship between consenting adults. Gay, straight, and/or polyamorous.

i think that would be a smashing idea!

 

Finnally you adress this one!

I'll start with pedophilia. Pre-teens are not competent to make their own decisions, any parent can see why. They are not permitted to vote, permited to sign a binding contract, allowed join the army, entitled to a jury trial and many other rights because they are not responsible or mature enough to be trusted with these things. When an adult preys on children, suducing them, he is forcing upon them the responsiblity of sex and all the things that come with it. Especially with the younger children, minors have not developed sexually and can be emotionally damaged by sexual encounters.

Next we have incest. For incest between parents and children I have addressed this sort of thing already in the first paragraph. Between brothers and sisters there are serious genetic health consequences for the childrenthey bare. This child is a third, non-consenting party.

Finally Polygamy. I'm not against polygamy in principal but in practice, among Mormon extremists, poligamists are prone to coercing minors into the relationship and the arrangement is not equal between the man and his female partners. Also legal polygamy would make it difficult to file charges against someone who married multiple people without those people knowing about each other and it would be a headache for the probate court system. Apart from that I'm pretty much ok with polygamy but it would only be a very small minority who would actually practice it were it legal.

 

The waiting lists are for babies. There are, in fact, plenty of homeless kids. Typically, they are being passed around from foster home to foster home.

I was not intending to slander you. I was trying to see what your statement implied. Obviously, I read to much into it. My apologies.

 

It has much less to do with the orientation of the parents than it does with lacking both sexes. Homosexuals are as much human as i am and are capable of loving kids as much as any straight parent.

My reasoning applies to single parents also: they lack the other sex.

Of course, there are kids who need to be adopted, and i'd rather not see kids sit alone...but i do think priority should be given to straight couples.

 

I wonder if there would be too many homosexual couples who would adopt young boys for the purpose of raising a third sexual partner?

I believe this has happened before with normal couples (thankfully very rare) but I wonder if there wouldnt be a highly disproportianate amount of cases among man-to-man couples?

 

Your the only stupid fucking moron here. [BlackG being simply a moron]

Re-read my post before you go about swearing at people and misrepresenting their posts.

The QUESTION, you stupid fuck, was - WOULD there be a disproportianatly higher amount of sexual abuse?

If you think the answer is 'No' then say so. fine.

(Although basing it on the fact that you do guys sometimes and are not a criminal child abuser like the poor kids parents is hardly some statistical overview is it?)

[Why dont people actually READ posts nowadays?]