Homosexual Marriages

[Elrathin]

What? You don't know what NAMBLA is? You need me to explain that to you as well?


If you think that is what I was asking, you are definately not the brightest.

[Newscaster]

Flea Bit writes:
It's an easy, but false argument to claim your opponent is motivated by base emotion or bigotry.
I answer:
Sorry kiddo but you appear to be so vocifereous about keeping gays out of the mainstream, I must think that that you either fear them because they are different or that you hate them because you might possibly be one. In either case, I am just speculating. I am NOT calling you gay.
Flea then wrote:
Love them or hate them, there is still no reason to change the structure of society for one vocal minority.
I answered:
I guess that means that the Civil Rights movement was bad because a vocal minority was speaking out to change the country and that women are bad because in the business world, they wish to be on an equal footing with me. Yes, there are often many reasons to change the structure of society. I am sorry you seem not to understand that.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I guess that means that the Civil Rights movement was bad


The civil rights movement was not brought about to silence a vocal minority, it was brought about primarily by republicans tired of democratic racist, and the civil rights act was voted in by a majority, as was womens right to vote, etc...

If you want to draw a correct parallel then have the gays get a gay marriage amendment passed like the ones that were passed by majority in the civil rights movement. The problem is that they can't, they are a vocal minority, unlike civil rights proponents.

Don't falsly paint the civil rights movement as being successful with only a minority support, it was a vocal majority that effected lasting change there.

Once again your points are way way off mark.

[Elrathin]

Don't falsly paint the civil rights movement as being successful with only a minority support, it was a vocal majority that effected lasting change there.


If it was a vocal majority, why did it take courts to end segregation?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If it was a vocal majority, why did it take courts to end segregation?


Courts did not end the democrat practice of segregation, majority votes like the Civil Rights Act of 1866 overturning dread scott, voting rights act and the civil rights act of 1964 did. (and segregation still exists legally in some areas)

And of course republicans gave more support for both these acts than democrats, and they passed by majority.

So once again you are wrong. Courts played their part by forcing small pockets of mostly democrat racists to abide by majority law.

[Elrathin]

Courts did not end the democrat practice of segregation, majority votes like the Civil Rights Act of 1866 overturning dread scott, voting rights act and the civil rights act of 1964 did. (and segregation still exists legally in some areas)

Courts ruled against it, and against the majority of the peoples wishes.


And of course republicans gave more support for both these acts than democrats, and they passed by majority.

The republicans back then are democrats now.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Courts ruled against it, and against the majority of the peoples wishes.


Wrong, courts ruled based on majority wishes against small pockets of racism.



The republicans back then are democrats now.


No, although the "new" democrats try to sell that idea to throw off their racist past, the democrats are still the party trying to play race as a vote getter rather than be morally against racism as the republicans have always been.

[Newscaster]

When you talk about whether it was democrats or republicans who helped civil succeed, try to remember that for a long time in the south, and especially around the time when civil rights was gettingh started, a major southern contigent of democrats who liked the idea of slavery and segregation and all that, broke off from the major party to form the Dixiecrat Party which was not in any way shape manner or form like the Democratic Party and those Dixiecrats existed for quite a while until they disbanded and joined the republican party. And by the way, the Democrats did not fall over in a dead faint when the dixiecrats left.Â*Â*So you see....the name tag on their jackets did not identify who they were...it was the crap going on in their heads and what they wanted was totally opposite of what the Real Democrats were seeking and were helping the Nation's African Americans to achieve. Thery may have called themselves Dixiecrats or even Democrats or maybe even republicans...but what they were....well I shall refrain from using those names.

[Alonzo]

NAMBLA is a homosexual pedophile group, and homosexuals do statistically have a much higher incidence of pedophilia.


That's only when you go on the assumption that homosexual pedophilia is the same as homosexuality. It's not. Homosexuals, those who have an interest in adults, are no more likely to have an interest in children than adult men who are interested in women.

Nambla is largely an organization comprised of fixated homosexual pedophiles. The term homosexual (or heterosexual) is used in reference to the type of children they prefer, it is not the same as adult homosexuality.

The studies that link pedophilia with homosexuality have gone on the assumption that interest in same sex children is evidence of general homosexuality, but that assumption is not supported by evidence. Studies done on that show no distinction in attraction to children between homosexuals and heterosexual.

[BoogyMan]

That's only when you go on the assumption that homosexual pedophilia is the same as homosexuality. It's not. Homosexuals, those who have an interest in adults, are no more likely to have an interest in children than adult men who are interested in women.

No Zo, this is wishful obfuscation on your part. It is a statistical point of fact that when considering NAMBLA that homosexuals DO have a higher percentage of pederastically focused individuals.

[Alonzo]

That's only when you go on the assumption that homosexual pedophilia is the same as homosexuality. It's not. Homosexuals, those who have an interest in adults, are no more likely to have an interest in children than adult men who are interested in women.

No Zo, this is wishful obfuscation on your part.Â*Â*It is a statistical point of fact that when considering NAMBLA that homosexuals DO have a higher percentage of pederastically focused individuals.


Nambla, according to the FBI, barely topped 1,000 in 95 and has dropped significantly since due to a crackdown.

But your "statistic point of fact" argument is baseless.

OBJECTIVE. To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children. DESIGN. Chart review of medical records of children evaluated for sexual abuse. SETTING. Child sexual abuse clinic at a regional children's hospital. PATIENTS. Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months to 17 years). DATA COLLECTED. Charts were reviewed to determine the relationships of the children to the alleged offender, the sex of the offender, and whether or not the alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. RESULTS. Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases. Seventy-four children were allegedly abused by other children and teenagers less than 18 years old. In 9 cases, an offender could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community. CONCLUSIONS. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8008535

Freund et al. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.

The abstract summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."


Groth, A. N., & Birnbaum, H. J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175-181.

Screened 175, 15- to 64-year-old males convicted of sexual assault against children with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The subjects divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male. (PsycINFO Database Record. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.)


The link between pedophilia and homosexuality is only made on assumptions. But, when the assumption that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles is tested, the evidence does not support it. That is why those who claim such a link exists tend to exist on the fringes and have a moral agenda beyond science.

[BoogyMan]

Nambla, according to the FBI, barely topped 1,000 in 95 and has dropped significantly since due to a crackdown.

But your "statistic point of fact" argument is baseless.

This is where I laugh at your 11 year old data reference! LOLOLOL

[Alonzo]

About 10 years ago, NAMBLA counted about 1,100 members, said Fairfax County, Va., detective Tom Polhemus, who went undercover and joined the organization's governing board.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050217-2208-manboy-daily.html

So when an undercover FBI investigation reveals a membership of 1100 members a decade ago, and evidence suggest that that groupls membership has been significantly reduced since then, that's laughable to you?

Nambla exists as little more than a shell of its former self. You haven't presented evidence for anything here, why don't you show how nambla has grown?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The link between pedophilia and homosexuality is only made on assumptions. But, when the assumption that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles is tested, the evidence does not support it.



The whole modern homosexual movement is based in part on pederasty, Oscar Wilde, André Gide, Paul Goodman and Allen Ginsberg were all homosexual pedophiles as well as adult homosexuals.

From your own links database:

50% of foster parent abuse in a general population survey and 34% of abuse as determined by the Illinois DCFS was homosexual. In news stories in the 50 largest newspapers and wire services 1980-2003, 175 foster parents sexually abused 351+ charges. For the 169 whose sex of victim could be determined: 149 (88%) were men; 76 (53%) victimized homosexually; and 85 (50%) were unmarried. Men assaulted 319 (91%) victims, homosexual practitioners 222 (63%), and the unmarried 164 (47%). From 1980-1994 57% of the victims were girls; after 1994 56% were boys. In 21 group homes, the molestation was homosexual in 15 (71%) and 31 of the 32+ perpetrators were male and at least 334 of 349+ victims were boys.

34% of the assaults were homosexual in nature, homosexuals are abbout 2% of the population, it is obvious that a far far larger portion of people with homosexual desires focus those desires on children than hetrosexuals do.

Do those who engage in homosexuality disproportionately sexually abuse foster or adoptive children as reported by child protective services? Illinois child services reported sexual abuse for 1997 through 2002. 270 parents committed "substantiated" sexual offenses against foster or subsidized adoptive children: 67 (69%) of 97 of these mother and 148 (86%) of 173 of these father perpetrators sexually abused girls; 30 (31%) of the mothers and 25 (14%) of the father perpetrators sexually abused boys, i.e., 92 (34%) of the perpetrators homosexually abused their charges. Of these parents 15 both physically and sexually abused charges: daughters by 8 of the mothers and 4 of the fathers, sons by 3 of the mothers, i.e., same-sex perpetrators were involved in 53%. Thus, homosexual practitioners were proportionately more apt to abuse foster or adoptive children sexually.

Again, it seems homosexuals are more likely to abuse children.

[Alonzo]

34% of the assaults were homosexual in nature, homosexuals are abbout 2% of the population, it is obvious that a far far larger portion of people with homosexual desires focus those desires on children than hetrosexuals do.

Let's go back again:

The link between pedophilia and homosexuality is only made on assumptions. But, when the assumption that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles is tested, the evidence does not support it. That is why those who claim such a link exists tend to exist on the fringes and have a moral agenda beyond science.


That's the issue. Studies do not support a link between adult sexual interests and interests in children. You missed the entire point of the studies posted.

It's a statistical fact that the majority of children abused are female, and it's also a statistical fact that more pedophiles seek out sex with same sex children than adults seek out sex with same sex adults. What is not supported is that an adult sexual interest in men (or women) will mirror the individuals preference in children. In fact, many pedophiles have no adult sexual interest, or relatively minor ones. Pedophiles are largely classified as either fixated or regressed. Fixated means they are simply interested in children. They tend to be emotionally immature and maladapted to society. Regressed pedophiles have similar symptoms, but the episode is brought on by stress and such. It is temporary, assuming the external conditions eventually change.

[underdawg]

You know how insulting it is to be constantly linked to child abuse, pederasty, or whatever just because I happen to homosexual. Constantly being judged because of what I am and not on my character. If I were to make a statement and say that red headed men were found to be more likely to be child molesters and that they should be prevented from having children and getting married, I would think that every red headed man would feel outraged to be thought of as a potential child molester just by the color of his hair.

[Alonzo]

Underdawg, the problem is that people assume that interest in children is consistent with interest in adults. It may sometimes be an honest mistake, as is likely the case here, but in the researchers promoting this view (like the family research council) it is deceitful. Research does not support that assumption. Pedophiles molest children, homosexuals have sex with their own gender. But a homosexual pedophile is unlikely to have an interest in same sex adults, and homosexual adults are unlikely to have an interest in children period./

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

That's the issue. Studies do not support a link between adult sexual interests and interests in children

One study you posted didn't, however a simple but accurate statistical analysis I posted showed homosexuals were more likely to molest children.

Here is that conclusion again:

Thus, homosexual practitioners were proportionately more apt to abuse foster or adoptive children sexually.

Here is more from this page:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

A study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, "all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories," which included males as young as age fifteen

Zebulon A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey, "Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women," p.73.

[Alonzo]

Family research council is a joke. It's not a scientific organization, it's a moral organization masquerading as research group. Here's their core principles:

The Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.

God exists and is sovereign over all creation. He created human beings in His image. Human life is, therefore, sacred and the right to life is the most fundamental of political rights.
Life and love are inextricably linked and find their natural expression in the institutions of marriage and the family.
Government has a duty to promote and protect marriage and family in law and public policy.
The American system of law and justice was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic.
American democracy depends upon a vibrant civil society composed of families, churches, schools, and voluntary associations.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC

Where's the science?

And here, they misrepresented that study. First, here is how the DSM IV-TR defines pedophilia:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm

Here's an critique of the study you quoted. I've read the study before and included it in a research paper, but I only have access to the research files on tuesday wednesday and thursdays, so I can't post the entire study at the moment:

Silverthorne and Quinsey used a sample of community volunteers who were asked to view pictures of human faces and use a 7-point scale to rate their sexual attractiveness. The apparent ages of the people portrayed in the pictures was originally estimated by Dr. Silverthorne to range from 15 to 50. However, a group of independent raters perceived the male faces to range in age from 18 to 58, and the female faces to range from 19 to 60.

The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were approximately 5.

On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).

A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may not have been comparable.

This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in social psychological research.

Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:

the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of the different photos;
all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18; and
the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather than the research participants' sexual arousal.


http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

And that is correct. The faces in that study were all of people who appeared to be at least 18. By definition that cannot be evidence of pedophilia. And, second, the attractiveness of the faces in each group was not controlled for.


One study you posted didn't, however a simple but accurate statistical analysis I posted showed homosexuals were more likely to molest children.

Here is that conclusion again:

Thus, homosexual practitioners were proportionately more apt to abuse foster or adoptive children sexually.

Show me the study. Show me a study by a reputable organization that links adult sexual preference with pedophilia.

Show some evidence that the assumption is valid. You keep saying "well, 34% of child abuse is committed by a member of the same sex, so that proves homosexuals molest children more". No it doesn't. It does not show any link between adult and child sexual preference. If you can show me a reputable source on that I'll argue, if not I won't. Take that however you want. If you can't do that it's not worth my time. I'd rather end the argument now than post two more pages where I take time to write out responses and you keep repeating the same line with little to no relevant additional info. If there really is a link between adult sexual orientation and child sexual preference then you should be able to find a study outside the like of the family research council and paul cameron that support it. Find something that supports the assumption you are repeatedly making.

[underdawg]

Anther thing that bugs me about conservatives arguments against gay marriage is that they tend to assume that children will be involved. Most of the gays I know have absolutely no desire to have or adopt children. Personally I am quite content to adopt a puppy or a kitten.

I think having children is an entirely different issue. If a gay feels that urge to have a child I am sure he or she can find a willing person to produce a child with. You don't need marriage for that part. Homosexuals are already having and raising their own children whether conservatives like it or not.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You keep saying "well, 34% of child abuse is committed by a member of the same sex, so that proves homosexuals molest children more".


I also posted studies supporting that. The excerpt from the study that explored molested foster children was from your own link which has a database of studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15825933

Your posted study seems ripe for flaws or intentional underreporting of homosexuals, only 2 out of 269 perps were identified as gay or lesbbian, so to put my mind at rest how were they identified and how were the 222 who were identified as hetrosexual identified, and were the other 47 perps gay or straight?

Please apply the same critique to your own study as you apply to those that disagree with you.

And still, I think the emperical evidence speaks for itself.

Oscar Wilde, André Gide, Paul Goodman, Allen Ginsberg.

Were these men famous, well respected homosexuals?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Anther thing that bugs me about conservatives arguments against gay marriage


It doesn't bother you when liberal opponents of gay marriage make the same points?

[underdawg]

I don't like it when anyone makes those assumptions. It is that conservatives around election time always tend to push the issue.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

It is that conservatives around election time always tend to push the issue.


This issue is pushed entirely by the gays.

[underdawg]

The issue I am speaking of is the assumption that children are always involved with gay marriage. I do not think that gays are making that assumption. The only thing being pushed by gays is to have the same right to marry the mate of their choice.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The issue I am speaking of is the assumption that children are always involved with gay marriage.


Who says that? Link please.

[underdawg]

Every thread that I have read on this site that involves gay marriage always has at least one or more postings talking about how bad gay marriage is for the children. Just on these last three pages alone, gays are talked about as being potential child abusers, non fit parents, etc. The right to get married and having and raising children are two different issues.

[Alonzo]

You keep saying "well, 34% of child abuse is committed by a member of the same sex, so that proves homosexuals molest children more".


I also posted studies supporting that. The excerpt from the study that explored molested foster children was from your own link which has a database of studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15825933

Your posted study seems ripe for flaws or intentional underreporting of homosexuals, only 2 out of 269 perps were identified as gay or lesbbian, so to put my mind at rest how were they identified and how were the 222 who were identified as hetrosexual identified, and were the other 47 perps gay or straight?

I should be able to post the study later. I don't have access to the research database unless I'm on campus.

And still, I think the emperical evidence speaks for itself.

Again, show me a link between adult sexual interests and preference in the type of child.

Oscar Wilde, André Gide, Paul Goodman, Allen Ginsberg.

Were these men famous, well respected homosexuals?


Are you going to attempt to make an argument about millions based on 3 people?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Are you going to attempt to make an argument about millions based on 3 people?


Actually, if you counted it was four imprtant gays, not three. And to the point why not when most of these studies only have a very few people anyway?
So ask yorself what is more indicative of the facts, four real people, or a few unknown people with innertubes strapped on their privates and uncalibrated pressure sensors replacing rational thought?

Even if you belive in the inner tube instead of reality, there are studies that show that homosexuals prefer youth more than hetrosexuals.

[Elrathin]

So ask yorself what is more indicative of the facts, four real people, or a few unknown people with innertubes strapped on their privates and uncalibrated pressure sensors replacing rational thought?

Even if you belive in the inner tube instead of reality, there are studies that show that homosexuals prefer youth more than hetrosexuals.


If what you are saying is true, why isn't being a homosexual illegal? Why isn't gays raising kids illegal. Why isn't gays adopting illegal? If homosexuality is such a threat to youth as you seem to be claiming, why isn't it illegal?

I'll take the facts that this is not illegal to be suffiicent evidence that your claim is false or at best exaggerated.

[Alonzo]

Actually, if you counted it was four imprtant gays, not three. And to the point why not when most of these studies only have a very few people anyway?

Some have a couple dozen, some have hundreds. They're not supporting your argument.

So ask yorself what is more indicative of the facts, four realÂ*Â*people, or a few unknown people with innertubes strapped on their privates and uncalibrated pressure sensors replacing rational thought?

4 hand picked people vs hundreds of people in various studies that weren't hand picked by someone out to attack homosexuality. What is more reasonable to accept as the norm?

Even if you belive in the inner tube instead of reality, there are studies that show that homosexuals prefer youth more than hetrosexuals.


Find one connecting homosexuals to pedophilia.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Some have a couple dozen, some have hundreds. They're not supporting your argument.



Wrong, many are supporting my argument. Those that don't have holes the size of the iceburg that sank the titanic in them. Gays are 2% of the pop but gay pedophiles are 30%+ of the molesters. That spells it out pretty well.

[Elrathin]

Wrong, many are supporting my argument. Those that don't have holes the size of the iceburg that sank the titanic in them. Gays are 2% of the pop but gay pedophiles are 30%+ of the molesters. That spells it out pretty well.


What you fail to point out is IF the reason behind the molestations are because they are gay.

You are trying to connect molestation with homosexuality, but you have not correlated any data connecting the two.

For example over the past years there have been global temperature rising and also there have been a decrease in pirates. Does that mean that there is a connection between global warming and pirates?

In other words the reason the molestations happened is no more connected to homosexuality than molestations by heterosexuals are connected to heterosexuality.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

What you fail to point out is IF the reason behind the molestations are because they are gay.


If it is homosexual molestation, then they are gay.

[Alonzo]

Some have a couple dozen, some have hundreds. They're not supporting your argument.



Wrong, many are supporting my argument. Those that don't have holes the size of the iceburg that sank the titanic in them. Gays are 2% of the pop but gay pedophiles are 30%+ of the molesters. That spells it out pretty well.



I'm done with this. You keep wanting to argue that interest in same sex adults is the same as interest in same sex children. You assume that homosexual pedophilia is the same as adult homosexuality, yet provide no evidence. I said if you keep saying that without providing evidence for that assumption I'm not going to continue and I'm not. It's just an ignorant argument. That has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me, but it's because you can't even grasp that you have to actually show that adult homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are related in any way other than in name.

I have to wonder whether you are doing it intentionally or you really just don't get it.

[Elrathin]

If it is homosexual molestation, then they are gay.


Yes, but did the molester molest the children SOLELY because he was gay or is it just that the molestation happened to be his sexual preference?

A pedophile is a pedophile because they like children sexually, not because of sexual preference.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If it is homosexual molestation, then they are gay.


Yes, but did the molester molest the children SOLELY because he was gay


The men who molest boys are homosexual, right?

[askates]

heres your the proof for your arguement flea bit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDmeEiC5skw

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I'm not sure what you mean by that film asketes, are you saying all gay men are child molesters? If so I disagree, I'm sure some gay men are and some gay men are not.

[askates]

What about heterosexuals that molest little boys?

[askates]

The men who molest boys are homosexual, right?


No, they are pedophiles, this isn't a hard concept to grasp

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But as I said early on in the drawn out debate, that Homo's are going after young boys, in LARGE numbers.
2. They tend to be the mindset to germinate the next generation of Homo's.
3. Perhaps they were germinated by a family friend when they were a small child, by having their pecker fondled when they were a small child.
4. And they see this as a way to spread the Homo gene throughout the world, one child at a time.
5. Do I have a link, with some known liberal professor agreeing with me? No.
6. But I, am the Highly Trained Conservative Republican Political/Biblical Advisor, who happens to be ahead of the curve on knowing the facts, on just about everything.

Regards,
SirJAmesofTexas

[Elrathin]

1. But as I said early on in the drawn out debate, that Homo's are going after young boys, in LARGE numbers.


Care to back that up with evidence?

[Elrathin]

The men who molest boys are homosexual, right?


Perhaps, but they are pedophiles as well. A trait that even STRAIGHT people have obviously since molestations happen by straight people.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The men who molest boys are homosexual, right?


Perhaps, but they are pedophiles as well. A trait that even STRAIGHT people have obviously since molestations happen by straight people.


But when 30% or more of the molestations are homosexual in nature, yet only about 2% of the population in general is homosexual doesn't that raise a big red flag?

Especially when such homosexual icons as Oscar Wilde, André Gide, Paul Goodman and Allen Ginsberg were all homosexual pedophiles.

[Elrathin]

But when 30% or more of the molestations are homosexual in nature, yet only about 2% of the population in general is homosexual doesn't that raise a big red flag?

Especially when such homosexual icons as Oscar Wilde, André Gide, Paul Goodman and Allen Ginsberg were all homosexual pedophiles.


You are trying to connect homosexuality to pedophiles. That is no more possible than connecting molestations to heterosexuality.

The only flags it raises are those that are trying to erroneously connect the two.

The problem is pedophiles, not homosexuals.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You are trying to connect homosexuality to pedophiles.



30% of reported pederasty is homosexual.

[Elrathin]

30% of reported pederasty is homosexual.


And 70% is heterosexuals. So is heterosexuality the problem for the other 70%?

What causes heterosexuals to molest kids. Oh yeah, they're pedophiles, same as those homosexuals that molest kids.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

30% of reported pederasty is homosexual.


And 70% is heterosexuals. So is heterosexuality the problem for the other 70%?

What causes heterosexuals to molest kids. Oh yeah, they're pedophiles, same as those homosexuals that molest kids.



Yes, but since only 2% or so of the pop in general is homosexual, yet 30% of the molestation is homosexual, it would indicate that a homosexual is 15 times more likely to molest a child.

[Elrathin]

Yes, but since only 2% or so of the pop in general is homosexual, yet 30% of the molestation is homosexual, it would indicate that a homosexual is 15 times more likely to molest a child.


Yet again you failed to answer the question, why do the other 70% of the heterosexuals molest children then?

[Elrathin]

When you can refute this Point by point:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Come on back. Until then, consider yourself refuted since this source pretty much destroys the study you are talking about.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

When you can refute this Point by point:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Come on back. Until then, consider yourself refuted since this source pretty much destroys the study you are talking about.


The source you posted does no such thing, it doesn't even mention the study I referenced twice already that shows a higher incidence of homosexuals committing pererasty on foster kids.

I would guess that Prof. Herek is himself gay, and desperate to paint gays in as positive a light as possible. His article is rife with things like:

"In scandals involving the Catholic church, the victims of sexual abuse were often adolescent boys rather than small children. Similarly, the 2006 congressional page scandal involved males who were at least 16 years old."

So he's moving the pederasty bar around to suit his argument.

"The article doesn't report the data in great detail "

Gosh, neither does his, he refutiates on lack of detail rather than the actual study.

"If as few as 3 people in each city faked their responses in this manner, then a substantial portion of the total number of reports of such activities would be invalid"

Gosh, so now he is depending on people faking data to prove a study wrong? :rolleyes:

Clearly this article is biased and is simply searching for any reason to dismiss scientific data.

[Elrathin]

Clearly this article is biased and is simply searching for any reason to dismiss scientific data.


How about these points sherlock:

This article is discussed above in the "Other Approaches" section. As the FRC concedes, it contradicts their argument. The abstract summarizes the authors' conclusion: "Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children."

The article doesn't report the data in great detail (e.g., average ratings are depicted only in a graphic; the actual numbers aren't reported) and the authors provide contradictory information about the rating scale (they describe it as a 7-point scale but also say it ranged from 0 to 7, which constitutes an 8-point scale). In either case, it appears that none of the pictures was rated as "very sexually attractive" (a rating of 7). Rather, the highest average ratings were approximately 5.

On average, gay men rated the 18-year old male faces the most attractive (average rating = about 5), with attractiveness ratings declining steadily for older faces. They rated the 58-year old male faces 2, on average. By contrast, heterosexual men rated the 25-year old female faces the most attractive (about 5), with the 18- and 28-year old female faces rated lower (between 2 and 3) and the 60-year old female faces rated the least attractive (about 1).

A serious problem with this study is that the researchers didn't control for the possibility that some of the faces pictured in the photos might simply have been more or less physically attractive than the others, independent of their age or gender. The researchers explicitly acknowledged this shortcoming, speculating that the women's faces in the 25-year old group might have been more attractive than women's faces in the other age groups. But they didn't address the possibility that the attractiveness of the male and female faces may not have been comparable.

This issue could have been addressed in various ways. For example, prior to collecting data, the researchers could have started with a large number of photographs and asked a group of independent raters to evaluate the general physical attractiveness of the face in each photo; these ratings could have been used to select photos for the experiment that were equivalent in attractiveness. Getting independent ratings of experimental stimuli in this way is a common procedure in social psychological research.

Thus, even if one accepts the questionable assumption that this study is relevant, it doesn't support the FRC's contention that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to be child molesters for several reasons:

* the researchers failed to control for the varying attractiveness of the different photos;
* all of the faces portrayed in the photos were perceived to be at least 18; and
* the study merely assessed judgments of sexual attractiveness rather than the research participants' sexual arousal.

This study categorized convicted sex offenders according to whether they molested or reported sexual attraction to boys only, girls only, or both boys and girls. These groups were labeled, respectively, homosexual pedophiles, heterosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. This classification referred to their attractions to children. Adult sexual orientation (or even whether the men had an adult sexual orientation) wasn't assessed.

In this study, child sex offenders were interviewed. Their sexual orientation (gay, heterosexual, bisexual) wasn't assessed. The authors drew from their findings to suggest strategies for how parents and children can prevent sexual victimization. It is noteworthy that none of those strategies involved avoiding gay men.

This study, described above in the section on "Other Approaches," contradicts the FRC's argument. The FRC faults the study because the researchers didn't directly interview perpetrators but instead relied on the victims' medical charts for information about the offender's sexual orientation. However, other studies cited favorably by the FRC (and summarized in this section) similarly relied on chart data (Erickson et al., 1988) or did not directly assess the sexual orientation of perpetrators (Blanchard et al. 2000; Elliott et al. 1995; Marshall et al., 1988). Thus, the FRC apparently considers this method a weakness only when it leads to results they dislike.

The researchers categorized 7 offenders who were more aroused overall by the male nudes than the female nudes as the homosexual subgroup. They categorized 14 offenders who were more aroused overall by the female nudes as the heterosexual subgroup. The offenders were not asked their sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual) and the paper does not report any information about the nature of the offenders' adult sexual relationships, or even if they had any such relationships.

This book, published nearly 30 years ago by a team of writer-activists, is not a scientific study. The authors' survey methodology is not reported in detail and, because it was a journalistic work, the survey was never subjected to scientific peer review.

This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes. (The paper is unclear in that it doesn't explain how perpetrators with multiple victims were counted.) The paper asserts in passing that "Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (p. 83). However, no details are provided about how this information was ascertained, making it difficult to interpret. Nor did the authors report the number of homosexual versus bisexual offenders, a distinction that the Groth and Birnbaum study (described above) indicates is relevant.

Try actually reading those and refuting them point by point. This is no more biased than the study you cited.

[Elrathin]

Clearly this article is biased and is simply searching for any reason to dismiss scientific data.


Clearly it is not scientific data if it is obtained not using true scientific methods and only using biased means.

[askates]

Especially when such homosexual icons as Oscar Wilde, André Gide, Paul Goodman and Allen Ginsberg were all homosexual pedophiles.


Who's Icons are they? only other pedophiles. These four names are the only defense you have provided, your debate is based on,driven by, and thoroughly polluted with fallacies. Just because 30% of the cases in this peticular partisan study, were homosexual, that has absolutely no relevance to the entire population. none.

And the comment by chess about fondling their little peckers, was the most overly pedo-erotic post ive read yet. gross

[dgridley]

"Straight" and "normal" don't necessarily belong in the same sentence.. and just because someone is different doesn't make them abnormal or immoral.

I know of plenty of "straight" people who are far from "normal"... there are bad apples on both sides of the fence and just as many loving and caring homosexuals as straights. At least a homosexual couple as parents are more apt to teach "tolerance".



Sorry bout that,

1. But I am sure that in an orphanage that there are many caring and loving people in charge in them.
2. Straight people.
3. Straight people who care, and help these kids.
4. Where at least they have normal people guiding them.
5. With knowledge of how to counsel them, and support them in their paths.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[underdawg]

It is odd that a discussion about why homosexuals should not be allowed to get married and how it would harm heterosexual marriages has devolved into whether homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals. I am wondering if any study was done to show that repressive religions might be responsible for creating child molesters in our society, but that is a different topic.

Where besides a bias against gays are the studies that show heterosexual marriage is harmed by homosexuals wanting to get married. Some of you say that homosexual marriage would create a mockery out of heterosexual marriage, but shows like "I Want To Marry A Millionaire", or having Brittany Spears have a drunken spur of the moment wedding, seems to make more of a mockery out of heterosexual marriage, yet no one seemed to bat an eye.

[piratemonkey]

Some of you say that homosexual marriageÂ*Â*would create a mockery out of heterosexual marriage, but shows like "I Want To Marry A Millionaire", or having Brittany Spears have a drunken spur of the moment wedding, seems to make more of a mockery out of heterosexual marriage, yet no one seemed to bat an eye.



Do you know what creates a mockery of Marriage more than anything else?

Divorce.

Why aren't the same people railing against gay marriage also railing against divorce?

Because they get divorced.

[underdawg]

You are exactly right piratemonkey.

[BoogyMan]

Some of you say that homosexual marriageÂ*Â*would create a mockery out of heterosexual marriage, but shows like "I Want To Marry A Millionaire", or having Brittany Spears have a drunken spur of the moment wedding, seems to make more of a mockery out of heterosexual marriage, yet no one seemed to bat an eye.



Do you know what creates a mockery of Marriage more than anything else?

Divorce.

Why aren't the same people railing against gay marriage also railing against divorce?

Because they get divorced.


Who says were NOT railing against divorce, Pirate? I have always been against divorce, and for reasons you would spurn with your new age athiest ideology. Your assumption is narrow and erroneous.

[Elrathin]

Who says were NOT railing against divorce, Pirate? I have always been against divorce, and for reasons you would spurn with your new age athiest ideology. Your assumption is narrow and erroneous.


Is there a national call to end divorce and make a constitutional amendment to make it illegal? Nope, I see conservatives keep trying one against gay marriage, but not divorce.

Divorce is a worse insult to marriage, and conservatives don't care about it because they are the ones that do it as well.

[BoogyMan]

Who says were NOT railing against divorce, Pirate?Â*Â*I have always been against divorce, and for reasons you would spurn with your new age athiest ideology.Â*Â*Your assumption is narrow and erroneous.


Is there a national call to end divorce and make a constitutional amendment to make it illegal?Â*Â*Nope, I see conservatives keep trying one against gay marriage, but not divorce.

Divorce is a worse insult to marriage, and conservatives don't care about it because they are the ones that do it as well.


Lets modify that assumption to "some conservatives" don't care about it.

I consider them BOTH full frontal assaults on marriage.

[Elrathin]

Lets modify that assumption to "some conservatives" don't care about it.

I consider them BOTH full frontal assaults on marriage.


Well you seem to be loose with the term Democrats and liberals so I figured you wouldn't mind me lumping all conservatives into a group like you have with others.

But again facts seem to prove that conservatives as a majority do not care about divorce.

EDIT: Will edit this to say that conservatives as a majority do not care about divorce to actually DO something about it. They may not agree with it, but they sure in the hell aren't doing anything about it as they are with gay marriage.

[Technocrat]

Disallow smoker and Christian marriage. They are often not optimal family structures.
Can't have that. Think of the children.
=D

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Is there a national call to end divorce and make a constitutional amendment to make it illegal?


In the 60's liberals made divorce much easier, I think you are right that divorce should be returned to the pre 60's morality.

[Elrathin]

In the 60's liberals made divorce much easier, I think you are right that divorce should be returned to the pre 60's morality.


Well why don't you guys do something about it then? All we hear about is how liberalism is dying, so hurry up why don't you all. But that would require conservatives to actually believe their own BS about caring about the sanctity of marriage. And that is already been proven to be a talking point and nothing more. Conservatives get divorced as well. Where is the protection to the sanctity of marriage from conservatives?

[underdawg]

The gay marriage debate is just a big diversion. Straight marriages suffer from divorse, infidelity, financial as well as other problems which has nothing to do with how homosexuals lead their lives. Gays are just the ultimate scapegoat. Just like Bush, conservatives find it easier to blame others for their own screw ups.

[Elrathin]

The gay marriage debate is just a big diversion. Straight marriages suffer from divorse, infidelity, financial as well as other problems which has nothing to do with how homosexuals lead their lives. Gays are just the ultimate scapegoat. Just like Bush, conservatives find it easier to blame others for their own screw ups.


It's just amusing to see conservatives prancing around screaming that the sanctity of marriage needs to be saved from gay marriage, yet they allow more destructive things to go unheard of against marriage. Mainly because they are doing it themselves so it's ok.

In other words, you're right, it's just one big distraction and has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

In the 60's liberals made divorce much easier, I think you are right that divorce should be returned to the pre 60's morality.


Well why don't you guys do something about it then?


Abortion is a greater priority, when we get rid of that, the other stuff comes next.

Of course if we can stop gay marriage before it corrupts society all the better, we won't have to reverse it later.

[underdawg]

Yeah, but with all these threads you just can't seem to explain how or why gay marriage would harm straight marriages. I have yet to hear a convincing argument against gay marriage other than Christian bias.

[Elrathin]

Abortion is a greater priority, when we get rid of that, the other stuff comes next.

Of course if we can stop gay marriage before it corrupts society all the better, we won't have to reverse it later.


What you guys can't multi-task? Are conservatives incompetent that they can only do one thing at a time?

In other words, conservatives "sanctity of marriage" cries are nothing more than a farse. Thanks for admiting that.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

What you guys can't multi-task?


Sure, we can fight a war on terrorism and stop a vocal minority from perverting marriage at the same time.

[Elrathin]

Sure, we can fight a war on terrorism and stop a vocal minority from perverting marriage at the same time.


What about divorce? Can't you do that to? Or is it just FACT that you guys don't care about the sanctity of marriage because you allow divorce to be legal. So again, where is the conservative MAJORITY fighting divorce at to make it illegal?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

What about divorce? Can't you do that to?



Sure, but it is much harder to fix it after you let the genie out the bottle. That is why it is so critical not to do more damage to marriage now.

[underdawg]

Yeah, but so far conservatives have not shown how or why gay marriage will affect them.

[Technocrat]

What damage will gay marriage do to marriage? It won't hurt anyone. The "damage" is entirely hypothetical, imaginary. Even if it were "real," they are talking about damage to an abstract concept, not a real person or entity.

The suffering of real people outweighs potential harm to an abstract.

[underdawg]

I suppose an imagined fear can be the worst kind of fear for many people. Kinda like hypochondria.

[Elrathin]

I suppose an imagined fear can be the worst kind of fear for many people. Kinda like hypochondria.


Pretty much. Conservatives against Gay Marriage have put no good arguments against gay marriage whatsoever. That is why it will change. There is only soo much bigoted hate you can use to try and convince someone otherwise before people stop believing in it.

We have already seen states going to allow gay marriage and in the future it will happen and they will fall like dominoes and allow it.

[Elrathin]

Sure, but it is much harder to fix it after you let the genie out the bottle. That is why it is so critical not to do more damage to marriage now.


The genie is already out of the bottle we have states that allow gay marriage. Guess it's time for you guys to give up now.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The genie is already out of the bottle we have states that allow gay marriage. Guess it's time for you guys to give up now.


There is A state that allows it, 20 that don't by recent constitutional amendment, and 8 more voting to ban it in a week.

Sounds like Gays should just give up.

[Elrathin]

There is A state that allows it, 20 that don't, and 8 more voting to ban it in a week.

Sounds like Gays should just give up.


Sounds like they ar just getting started, 10 years ago there would be NO states that would consider it.

History is on the side of tolerance. Gay marriage will become legal and then the opponents of gay marriage will be forced into their damp and dank basements to cry about their loses, much like the members of the KKK are forced to do now.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Sounds like they ar just getting started, 10 years ago there would be NO states that would consider it.


Right, 10 years ago no states considered a constitution ban on gay marriage, now it's almost 50% of the states (likely more on Nov 8th)

Histort is not on the side of extremist gay agenda.

[Elrathin]

Histort is not on the side of extremist gay agenda.


If history wasn't being gay would be illegal. Now there are rights set up for gays. Sorry, but history is on the side of gays and it will be shown in the future. Opponents of gay marriage will be crying like little babies just as those that were against interracial marriages are doing now.

On that day I will celebrate the passing of a bigoted time gone by.

[piratemonkey]

History will not be on the side of those against gay marriage.

Both young people and better educated people are much more likely to support gay marriage.Â*Â*Neither speaks well for the opponents.

A closer look at the opinions of various demographic groups on this issue shows that young people, especially those in their late teens and twenties, are more supportive of gay marriage than are older Americans.

College graduates age 65 and older are more than three times as likely to favor gay marriage than are seniors with less education.
http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39#2

Follow the trend lines.Â*

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Both young people and better educated people are much more likely to support gay marriage.


Being young is very temporary, when you are young you don't think as well and as you age you get more wisdom.

As far as the rest of the data, it doesn't look good for gay marriage:

Overall, Americans with college degrees are divided almost evenly over the issue of gay marriage (49% oppose, 44% favor)

[Elrathin]

[and as you age you get more wisdom.


More like bigotry, not wisdom.

[Elrathin]

As far as the rest of the data, it doesn't look good for gay marriage:

Overall, Americans with college degrees are divided almost evenly over the issue of gay marriage (49% oppose, 44% favor)


Where is the stats for this? How many college students were polled and where were the colleges located?

[Technocrat]

The point is not that young people are necessarily the important factor; it is that people who are educated in the new age are likely to keep many of their ideas. I doubt people who were pro-gay will suddently become anti-gay later in life.

The generational paradigm shift is taking place. They will inculcate their children in newer, more progressive values and pass them on. The old bigot-bags from the old-school of ethics will die off.

[piratemonkey]

The old bigot-bags from the old-school of ethics will die off.


Bigot-bags. I love it.

If 10% of people like olives, but 98% of them are under the age of 20, are there likely to be more or less olive loving people in 10 years?

Flea... don't just look at the numbers, look at the trend lines. That will show you the direction we are headed.

And that direction seems to be very gay. :)

[cs0564]

Now the issue is where will America be if we openly accept Homosexuality as a way of life. The Roman empire failed due to two reasons:

1. Homosexuality - Romans felt that if they ever accepted it they would fail. The country ran rampant with it and thus it did fall.

2. Ilegal immigration - The Celtics, among others wanted to come to Roman territory so that they would have all of the benefits the Romans had such as a steady job and good pay. They did not want to be Roman, just take the benefits.

Do these sound familiar?

[Alonzo]

Now the issue is where will America be if we openly accept Homosexuality as a way of life.Â*Â*The Roman empire failed due to two reasons:

1. Homosexuality - Romans felt that if they ever accepted it they would fail.Â*Â*The country ran rampant with it and thus it did fall.

2. Ilegal immigration - The Celtics, among others wanted to come to Roman territory so that they would have all of the benefits the Romans had such as a steady job and good pay.Â*Â*They did not want to be Roman, just take the benefits.


:D I bet you believe that.

[Elrathin]

1. Homosexuality - Romans felt that if they ever accepted it they would fail. The country ran rampant with it and thus it did fall.

Do you have a shred of evidence to prove this point, or are you just all rhetoric like some of the other conservatives here? Put up or shut up.


2. Ilegal immigration - The Celtics, among others wanted to come to Roman territory so that they would have all of the benefits the Romans had such as a steady job and good pay. They did not want to be Roman, just take the benefits.

Do these sound familiar?
[/quote]

Not even close. The celtics waged war on the Romans and after they took the capitol of the Roman Empire, they entered into negotiation with the romans after they had the capitol seiged for seven months.

This wasn't illegal immigration it was war. Have the illegal immigrants taken over washington? No, they haven't.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

As far as the rest of the data, it doesn't look good for gay marriage:

Overall, Americans with college degrees are divided almost evenly over the issue of gay marriage (49% oppose, 44% favor)


Where is the stats for this? How many college students were polled and where were the colleges located?


Ask piratemonkey, he posted the link.

[Technocrat]

1. Homosexuality - Romans felt that if they ever accepted it they would fail. The country ran rampant with it and thus it did fall.

Wow. A false cause and a non sequitor all wraped into one. Let me play!


1. I woke up
2. I looked at my watch
3. The tree fell down

Therefore, looking at my watch made the tree fall down.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

1. I woke up
2. I looked at my watch
3. The tree fell down

Therefore, looking at my watch made the tree fall down.


Global warming science belongs in another thread.

[Elrathin]

Global warming science belongs in another thread.


That isn't global warming science that is the gay bashers logic.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Global warming science belongs in another thread.


That isn't global warming science that is the gay bashers logic.


Nope, gay bashers don't need science any more than straight bashers do. Global warming science is the exact same cause and effect relationship as given as an example of bad science.

You don't need science to realize that there is no compelling reason to give special marriage rights to every fringe group out there who wants them.

[Elrathin]

You don't need science to realize that there is no compelling reason to give special marriage rights to every fringe group out there who wants them.


So you were for interracial marriage ban then?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You don't need science to realize that there is no compelling reason to give special marriage rights to every fringe group out there who wants them.


So you were for interracial marriage ban then?



So you think each race is a fringe group then?

[Elrathin]

So you think each race is a fringe group then?


Tell you what, when you actual answer my question that I posted to you, I will answer this one. You don't answer a question with another question.

So when you get that down, then I will reply. And yes I have an answer to this question, and when you answer mine I will answer yours.

[Technocrat]

You don't need science to realize that there is no compelling reason to give special marriage rights to every fringe group out there who wants them.


So you were for interracial marriage ban then?



So you think each race is a fringe group then?


The idea of it being a "fringe group" is a Red Herring in the first place. It doesn't matter whether or not something is a fringe group. That's irrelevant. That they deserve protection for their welfare interests, while hurting no one as a result, is the real issue.

People made the same "ban" argument against interracial or socio-economic intergroup marriage. It was just as stupid, just as unjustified. It's preventing group X from pursuing happiness while harming no one who isn't willingly participating. It's merely a means of control of a group you don't like.

Gays are the new "Nergos." Sodomy and marriage laws are akin to Jim Crow mentality, just not as bad.

What group they are is a distractor.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The idea of it being a "fringe group" is a Red Herring in the first place. It doesn't matter whether or not something is a fringe group. That's irrelevant.


No it isn't. Marriage isn't a right, it's a contract that society regulates for the benefit of society. When changing such sociatal norms it is perfectly reasonable to examine who the change benefits in order to assess the wisdom of the change.

Saying Gays status as a fringe group is a red herring is the red herring here.

[Technocrat]

No it isn't.

Yes it is. You clearly don't comprehend what a Red Herring is.


Marriage isn't a right, it's a contract that society regulates for the benefit of society.

Actually, it is considered a Universal Human Right, but that is beside the point, for no where above did you see me argue anything about rights, did you? So let's try not to strawman, shall we zippy? Moving on.

However, even if we assume your utilitarian argument for the benefit of society, which I agree with in principle, there's no valid argument against gay marriage, since gay marriage doesn't hurt society any more than any other dyad. Marriage is indeed a contract for the financial and social benefit of those who engage in it, not just for society as a whole. That is an added benefit in that it promotes family units.

However, banning gay marriage specifically because it doesn't create families is a false premise on two grounds.

1. They can raise families, and quite successfully accoriding to the peer-reviewed research.

However, some will say they don't raise optimal children or they are not optimal parents. This logic also fails. There's no logical reason to ban anyone who is not an optimal parent. They might fluctuate somewhat from the norm, indeed, but no peer-reviewed research done shows any lasting or excessive harm to children of gay parents. In some situations, they benefit in the long run (turnbull, turnbull, erwin & soodak). The Utility argument is weak here.

2. That they don't have children doesn't mean that you can ban it. If you are going to ban marriage for group X because they won't have kids, then you must continue the logic and also ban it for any group that cannot have kids or won't have kids, since they are abusing the "social privilidge" of marriage designed for social benefit in terms of the reproduction of workers and citizens. This means anyone who is too old to have kids should be barred from marriage, as should people who are sterile. The Utility argument is weak here.

It is better to allow social utility by taking a libertarian approach to social issues. Let them do what they want to pursue their own happiness with a minimal level of control over it, stopping them only to relieve suffeirng and pain to others. This easily allows for the generation of personal happiness, the allowance for pain minimization, and easily prevents the government or a majority for setting up a harmful precedent in which they simply ban that which they don't like on caprice.

Actually, there are three ways in which the anti-gay marriage argument fails. You have to delineate specifically what "benefits" it provides for society and hay gay marriage will destroy them. Saying doesn't equate to evidence, even if you repeat it over and over.

3. The same logic is now, and was used in the past, to deny people of different socio-economic brackets intermarriage protections as well as interracial marriage. They claimed it wasn't a right for them and would do "insufferable harm" to the sacred institution. Niggas can't marry whites. Poor can't marry rich. It would upset the social order, destroy the sacredness of marriage. The importance of comparison does not lie in the nature of the marriage, unless harm is being done (which none is). Instead, it lies in the underlying logic of your argument. Your argument can equally be used to deny any group that's deemed "fringe" marriage, simply because the majority says so. This has been done before, and not just to fringe groups.

Yawn. Bullshit. Same story with gay marriage. Where it has been tried, there has been no catastrophic destructin of society.


When changing such sociatal norms it is perfectly reasonable to examine who the change benefits in order to assess the wisdom of the change.

Sure it is. However, you must provide evidence for harm or your arguments can be cast aside. The burden of proof is on you to show, objectively, via peer-reviewed scientific students that gay marriage causes such insufferable harm as to ban it. I know you cannot do that.


Saying Gays status as a fringe group is a red herring is the red herring here.


LOL. No.

You clearly don't comprehend what a Red Herring is. Saying "gay status" is a fringe group is a red herring is not itself a red herring. Mentioning "fringe status" is a red herring, since it's an irrelevant point to the provision and protection of welfare interests in marriage. whether or not something is fringe according to your subjective feelings has nothing to do with the benefits or harms it entails or the deserving of protection or lack thereof.

According to your logic, that a group is "fringe" means you can deny their equal welfare interests and protections, simply because they are fringe, regardless of the utility of doing so.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You clearly don't comprehend what a Red Herring is.


Of course I do, me pointing you using the term itself as a red herring makes that abundantly clear.

Am I to assume that you now feel to win this debate you have to question my understanding?


Actually, it is considered a Universal Human Right


Please point to the constitutional amendment that makes it a right.


there's no valid argument against gay marriage, since gay marriage doesn't hurt society

Prove that it doesn't.

Even if you are able to prove that it doesn't (which I doubt), that in and of it self is not reason enough for society to allow gay marriage. Society is not well served by simply carrying out every action that may not be detremental simply at the insistance of fringe groups. It makes no sense for societal efort to be used that way.

That is why (as I already explained) Gay status as a fringe group is important to consider, it does impact their weight upon society.

[underdawg]

According to the 14th amendment to the constitution.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Other than religious bias, there is absolutely no reason for the U.S. government to deny a certain section of it's citizens the same privileges that other citizens have. So far, no one has made a strong enough argument as to why or how homosexual marriages will do any harm to heterosexual marriages.

[Technocrat]

Of course I do, me pointing you using the term itself as a red herring makes that abundantly clear.

Incorrect. I understand now that you are confused and have have rudimentary comprehension of the concept. Mentioning that you committed a fallacy is not a red herring whatsoever. You indeed committed a fallacy, and that fallacy was interjecting irrelevant information into the argument. Status as fringe is irrelevant to either utility, welfare, or interests.

This is a moral debate and a legal debate. The only evidence relevant are laws, harms, etc. That something is fringe is not relevant itself, unless you can show concrete evidence that being a fringe caues harm.

Then agian, refer to my examples above. The argument for banning marriage is very weak if you want to argue along the lines of A. Children Factory Parents or B. Optimal Parenthood.



Please point to the constitutional amendment that makes it a right.

A. You never said the US constitution. You said it's not a right. That is a universalist concept. Believe it or not, morality extends beyond US legalism. Since banning is an inherently moral issue, as is the concept of gay welfare and "rights," moral rights theory comes into play. This moral rights theory, however, does relate to the US Constitution, as I will explain.

When the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they did so with the idea of natural, inherent rights, or protections of key welfare interests. The Bill of Rights and the first ten amendments exist as somewhat of an anomaly. Most of the Federalists believed it was unnecessary, since the government does not "give" rights. It merely protects ones you already have.

The Bill of Rights was seen as redunant, therefore. Most Federalists were actually leary of putting in a Bill of Rights because they believed, as you are doing now, that if something is not specifically enumerated, it does not exist. This is where one of the amendments comes into play. Now, understanding that the philosophy of the Founders was Libertarian, they believed in rights that end at the nose of others. People are free to pursue happiness if and only if it does not invovle violating the rights of others or phsyically, psychologically harming others.

The US Constitution reads, specifically, due to the fears of the Founders of people like you, created Amendment IX. Within, it specifically states that: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That a right doesn't speficifically find itself in the Bill of Rights or Constitution in general does not mean that neither the States nor the People have them.

It is assumed, again, that people have any "Right" not mentioned in the Constitution by default unless it involves violating the right of someone else. Marriage falls into this category. It is a means of pursuing personal and group happiness while not violating the rights of anyone else. The evidence that it objectively hurts anyone is shakey, if not nonexistent.



Prove that it doesn't

You are somewhat confused on how formal debate works, so I will explain this slowly. In a moral debate, the onus is on the person who claims something ought to be banned or causes harm to show it causes harm. Stating so won't cut it, because showing harm is amenable to objective evidence.

Proving a negative isn't. I needn't prove something is harmless. What you need to do is prove it is harmful. That's objectively verifiable. What you are therefore guilty of is the fallacy of Shifting Burden of Proof.



Even if you are able to prove that it doesn't (which I doubt), that in and of it self is not reason enough for society to allow gay marriage. Society is not well served by simply carrying out every action that may not be detremental simply at the insistance of fringe groups. It makes no sense for societal efort to be used that way.

Again, I need not prove a negative. You need to prove the positive statement. In this case, the positive statement is that X causes harm, therefore, it ought to be banned.

That it doesn't cause harm is indeed a reason to allow it. Consequences and harm are the only real measures of morality of an action.

You claim society is not well-served, but you offer no objective evidence why, how. Again, you are not substantiating your claim. YOu seem to think repetition = evidence. Show the studies, and make them peer-reviewed and varied. I want to see multiple studies of detriment.

"carrying out actions of the "fringe" is not a harm" any more than carrying out the actions of the majority. Loss of freedom itself is a harm, when you are not hurting anyone else. Not getting to restrict others freedom is not a loss of freedom, since there is no freedom or right to arbitrary restriction of others. That causes rights-conflict.Your rights end at the nose of others.





That is why (as I already explained) Gay status as a fringe group is important to consider, it does impact their weight upon society.


It's not a relevant factor. What's relevant is only the consequences of gay marriage to those who engage in it and to those in society. Consequences are in terms of harm, suffeirng, pain, anguish. Gay marriage hurts no one. It benefits those who want it, though. Dislike of a minority and disgust do not constitute suffering, pain, or anguish. Therefore, they are ignored.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Incorrect. I understand now that you are confused and have have rudimentary comprehension of the concept.


It's aways amazing to me when people lose arguments, like you did, that they think they can resort to personal attacks and regain a win. It just doesn't work, save making yourself look desperate.

Nothing you have posted changes the facts, Gays are a fringe group wanting society to change for them rather than they change for society. The onus is on them to show society makes the best choice by bending to their demands, and the gays have not come close to that.

Marriage is not a right, society does not benefit from granting gays a privilege at the expense of marriage.

[Elrathin]

society does not benefit from granting gays a privilege at the expense of marriage.


Sure it does, I have seen gays raise children great, and in some cases, better than straight people.

[Technocrat]

Since I recognize debate with him is now impossible, since he is now whinging about style over substance, I address this next post to the forum in general.

1. I should state that I accept his concession, whether he offers it outright or not, and I will explain why and make reference to my earlier post.

The Reason:

1. He has committed multiple fallacies in this thread, including, but not limited to, one strawman, one red herring, one burden of proof shift, and one typical non-sequitor, yet refuses to address them. He has made several assertions of fact, yet with repeteated requests that he provide evidence for these substantial claims, he refuses to provide anything but repetition of his original point. I, on the other hand, have addressed his concerns logically using evidence from the US constitution, the founder's philosohpy, as well as a moral argument from Utility.

2. He contintues to claim that I should have to disprove his argument. That is, he assumes that I need to prove that gay marriage does not cause harm. I have already explained that it is not the job of the skeptic to disprove the argument of the positive claimaint. This is a basic rule of logical discourse. He who makes the positive claim is the one who has the burden of proof. In this thread, he adamantly claims that gay marriage will cause such harm that it ought to be banned.

I asked at least 3 times for evidence of this. The type of evidence that would be valid would be statistical information on the impact of gay marriage on the institution of marriage, on children, and on society in general. The only valid reasoning for banning marriage is for objective harms. This means pain, suffering, anguish--physical or psychological, on othesr as a result of gay marriage.

This means that dislike, disgust, majoritarianism, etc, are not valid reasons for banning marriage. He has, though, advanced an argument from majoritiarianism.

His argument has been as follows:

1. We are the majority
2. We don't like gay marriage
3. Marriage is not a right
4. Therefore, since we are the majority and we don't like gay marriage, we can ban it.

The second argument is this:

Gay Marriage isn't a Right
Gay Marriage causes harm to marriage and society
Therefore, we can ban it.

Both are related, since he has explicitly used the phrase "the majority shouldn;'t have to cow-tow to the minority. The minority is a fringe. That makes it ok to ban their welfare interests.

This creates a problem as I have said. I will list again how I addressed this issue.

1. First of all, in my first post, I never once mentioend anything about marriage being a right. He attacked my argument by saying "it's not a right." It is a strawman since in arguing against me he is tacitly assuming that I was already arguing that marriage was a right. Since I wasn't, it therefore is not a valid argument. It distorts my own position I first offered, but it also is irrelevant to my moral argument. Morality extends beyond rights. That something isn't a right doesn't mean it is ok to ban it simply because a group says so.

2. His claim that marriage isn't a right can be addressed in two ways. First, from a universalist perspective, and secondly, from an American legalistic perspective. Neither of which really are moral arguments. However, I will go into some detail about them.

A. Marriage is classified according to the United Nations Delcaration of Human Rights as a moral, natural right of all Human Beings. That is, a man, a woman, or any self-aware, sapient, consenting individual may engage in a marriage with others for personal, economic utilty. Marriage is a right.

B. The Bill of Rights therefore was a concilation measure

If you look at the Constitution, you will notice that the above opponents argument: "where is this right in the constitution" is addressed by the Founding Fathers who predicted someone like him would come along one day and make that very argument. Observe section IX of the Bill of Rights. It claims that no right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, or a lack of one enumerated, can be used to discourage the individual and "prove" that someone doesn't have a right. That a right is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution has no bearing on whether or not someone has that right. It is tacitly assumed, again, that people have rights already.

To comprehend the importance of amendment IX, you have to comprehend the basic Libertarian Philosophy of the Founding Fathers. Marriage can even be classified as an implied right by looking at the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I explained that the Founding Fathers were largely Libertarian. That is, they advocated that people be able to pursue their own utility to the maximium extent possible; this personal advocation of utility could only be constrained if there were objective harms to others that would result in the freedom or if it violated a right of others. In their philosophy, the Founding Fathers believed in what was called Natural Rights Theory. That is, the government did not give rights, but protected ones you already had. The Bill of Rights itself was deemed unnecessary, actually, since they did not believe tha the government was giving you something that you already didn't have. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, because it is how the government was formed and what they intended it to be like.

There are lots of implied rights in the Constitution. That it's not in there doesn't mean you don't have it. Originally, the people who supported the Constitution didn't believe there needed to be one; indeed, many feared that someone would use the Bill of Rights enumeration of core rights to claim that people didn't have any others not listed. Again, that's why they created amendment IX.

Marriage can still be a right

3. However, the notion of rights isn't even a sticking point, as one doesn't have to argue in favour of rights to marriage existing. It is important to note that he is also making a Utilitarian argument; that is, he claims that marriage causes harm. I have addressed this as well.

A. He claims that I must prove that marriage doesn't cause harm. This is a fallacious argument since it shifts the burden of proof. I am a skeptic; that is, I deny his claim that X causes Y. It is not incumbent on he who denies a claim to have to prove a claim unless evidence is presented to substantiate the claim in the first place.

He has not offered any scientific, peer-reviewed studies as evidence that gay marriage harms anyone. Indeed, I have asked for it 3 or 4 times, and it has yet to appear. I therefore conclude he has none. The only thing he has done is try to shift the burden of proof onto me, again.

For example, let's do a thought experiment. Let's say someone said he had faeries living at the bottom of his car. I say: provide evidence or I won't believe you that you have faeries at the bottom of your car. He returns by saying: "disprove my claim that there are faeries." Again, like in the case of me saying I don't believe X causes Y, therefore it is immoral, is a true statement. HE is making the positive claim that X causes Y. He therefore MUST provide substantiation in something other than repetition of his original statement.

Using his logic, anyone can make any claim that X causes Y and refuse to provide evidence. What he is in essense doing is forcing the opposition to disprove a claim he never tried to prove in the first place. That's ass-backwards argumentation methodology.


Here is one example of his logic:


Nothing you have posted changes the facts, Gays are a fringe group wanting society to change for them rather than they change for society. The onus is on them to show society makes the best choice by bending to their demands, and the gays have not come close to that.

As the audience can see, he is stone-walling again, insisting on using non-sequitor reasoning again as a valid argument, when it isn't. That gays are a "fringe" group doesn't logically lead to it being ok to ban their activity. "We are the majority, we don't like you, therefore, we can ban you" isn't a moral argument. It's might makes right reasoning.

It's also entirely irrelevant whether or not something is a minority or fringe group when it comes to the equal consideration of their welfare interests. What he is doing is dismissing the group and refusing to consider their interests equally. In concordance with his bogus, unsubstantiated claim that gay marriage causes harm, he makes the moral argument that it is ok to ban X because the majority doesn't want to accept it.

Using his logic, group X can say group Y causes Z harm, never prove it, but ban group Z from doing activity A anyway, simply because group X is in charge, the majority, and they dislike group Y.

That's absurd. It also sets a dangerous moral precedent for majoritarian tryanny.

The onus is on him to prove that gays are harming society by marrying. He cannot do this, thus his argument is unsubstantiated. He has repeatedly been asked to provide statistical evidence from peer-reviewed sources that gay marriage causes social harm. He cannot do this; he has not done this. I therefore accept his concession.


Marriage is not a right, society does not benefit from granting gays a privilege at the expense of marriage.


For the audience, I have already addressed this claim of his on two grounds.

1. Using the US Constitution and the Libertarian Philosophy of the Founders

2. Using the argument from utility.

As you can see, notwithstanding the total lack of evidence for his claims, he repeats, in his last paragraph, gay marriage is created at the expense of society and marriage. He has offered no logic, no evidence to substantiate this claim. He's therefore engaging in Broken Record Syndrome. This is a phenomenon in which the debator repeats a claim ad infinitum untill the opponents give up due to sheer exhaustion. No one can seriously debate him, since his whole point is to troll with bullshit assertions he never has any intention on backing up.



Edit: I should also pre-empt a responce. Some have said that gay marriage should be banned because children are better off, albeit slightly, with two normal parents. Using that logic, we ought to ban any non-optimal marital structure. That means any parents who are not optimal for the child's growth shouldn't be allowed.

Some might say that marriage is for procreation. According to the logic of it, since gays cannot make kids, it therefore follows that marriage should be banned for them since they defy the purpose of marriage. Ok. Let's accept that. THen we must also ban EVERY marital form in which there would be no kids as a result. Therefore, old people cannot get married if they are beyond their prime for rearing kids. Neither should sterile people.

Ban geriatric and sterile marriage. THey are a harm to society and a degrading force for the sacred institution of child-rearing marriage.

Some might say that marriage is a sacred christian rite. This is only true to some. According to that logic, no Christians or those who disagree with Christian ideology ought to be banned from marriage.

Some might say that gays already have equal rights; that is, they are able to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. The law says they can marriage--just not someone of the same sex.

The very same logic was used in the 19th century when it came to interracial marriages, which were again banned based on the notion that they caused such "substantial harm" to the welfare of the children and the family if a child had different race parents. The logic also dictated that people of separate races had equal rights. That is, they all had the right to marry someone within their own race. It is true they didn't have a right to marry outside their race. Just like gays have a right to marry only outside their gender, not within it, blacks had a right to marry within their race, not outside of it.

It's the same moronic hill-billy logic.

[cs0564]

1. Using toilets isn't a right
2. If there is a majority that doesn't like the use of toilets, it can be banned.
3. This majority doesn't approve of toilet use
3. Therefore, we can ban toilet use because we say so. The minority shouldn't dictate the decisions of the majority.

Obviously, you see the problem. He's an idiot.


You have 2, 3's. You have now totally confused me with your superior debating skills. I believe I will go and use the toilet, unless of course you have now banned it. Have you?

Your logic is crude. Gay marriage is a right to all humans. You can go and marry your gay lover anytime you want. The governemnt does not however have to approve it.

Do you need government approval to use the toilet????

[Technocrat]

1. Using toilets isn't a right
2. If there is a majority that doesn't like the use of toilets, it can be banned.
3. This majority doesn't approve of toilet use
3. Therefore, we can ban toilet use because we say so. The minority shouldn't dictate the decisions of the majority.

Obviously, you see the problem. He's an idiot.


You have 2, 3's. You have now totally confused me with your superior debating skills. I believe I will go and use the toilet, unless of course you have now banned it. Have you?

Your logic is crude. Gay marriage is a right to all humans. You can go and marry your gay lover anytime you want. The governemnt does not however have to approve it.

Do you need government approval to use the toilet????




Actually, that was a joke statement. I was already modifying it as you were probably typing. Refer to the above.

The problem is that his argument is A. simple majoritarianism. B. Unsupported Utilitarianism. His logic is skewed either way. Refer to the above canned arguments against gay marriage. You actually only have a protected right to marry another consenting individual you love in some states. Not in others. In others, you have hill-billies like the original poster.

The goverment has to approve it if society will recognize it. It is unjust for group A to get Y for Z, but not group B. You lose many services and opportunities if you don't get it recongnized, including basic visitation rights at a hospital or inheritance rights.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

society does not benefit from granting gays a privilege at the expense of marriage.


Sure it does, I have seen gays raise children great, and in some cases, better than straight people.


And that is meaningless to society as a whole. If a single molested child grows to be a really exceptional adult does that mean all children should be molested?

[Anti-Racism]

If a single molested child grows to be a really exceptional adult does that mean all children should be molested?


If it brings about equality for all, of course.

http://www.nambla.org/

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

And again technocrat resort to yet more personal attacks and strawman and red herring arguments.

Marriage is a social contract, not a right. It is ad hoc to claim it is a right by baising that claim on what does not apply as a right normally, like a UN decree. The UN is totally specious when it comes to internal US law, as well as claims that the founders were libertarian therefore anything he claims is a right is a right.

Without showing a benefit to society there is no valid argument to demand a special right. This is Argumentum ad ignorantiam on technocrats part that gay marriage must be good because it hasn't been proven bad. It is faulty logic.

It isn't an argument strictly from the majority as his strawman goes, it is simply a fact of living in a regulated society that is regulated by the majority. Since there is no actual right to same sex marriage there is no reason to override majority rule.

Also he seems to say that the fact gays are a fringe group does not matter, but it does. You can't base a structure of laws on the exception rather than the rule without a valid reason, and there is none.

No suprise then that techno resorts to ad hominums again and again.

[Elrathin]

And that is meaningless to society as a whole.


Raising children is meaningless? What universe are you from. Raising Children is ESSENTIAL to a society. You just don't like gays doing it, but the fact is, they can.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

And that is meaningless to society as a whole.


Raising children is meaningless?


Any one specific unsupported anecdotal evidence is unimportant, just as if I said I know gay people who reall screwed up raising kids would be unimportant.

It is just a lame diversion to bury an argument the pro gay marriage people are losing.

I suspect you realized that long before you posted meaningless tripe.

[Elrathin]

Any one specific unsupported anecdotal evidence is unimportant, just as if I said I know gay people who reall screwed up raising kids would be unimportant.

It is just a lame diversion to bury an argument the pro gay marriage people are losing.

I suspect you realized that long before you posted meaningless tripe.


So in other words, you can't prove that gay people don't raise children well, so you continue on your idiotic comment of gay people don't mean anything to society.

In other words, your point of gay people don't mean anything to society has been proven FALSE. Thank you for playing, go ahead and cry along with the KKK people that said blacks won't amount to anything.

[Technocrat]

Exactly. His entire argument is predicated upon an unsupported assertion he vehemently refuses to provide any statistical evidence for, but expects everyone else to disprove.

He also shows an uncanny inability to grasp basic logic, as he thinks using the word red herring and strawman means he understands it well, like I do.

[underdawg]

I think the burden of proof that gay marriages are bad for society rests with those who claim it is wrong. The reason that the Bill of rights and the following amendments were added to the constittution were to protect the minority from the majority.

[Cameron Mineral]

I am late in joining this debate and I apologize to those who may have said already what I am saying.

And I am surprised I haven't heard before the self-evident question with which Newcaster started the discussion!

Of course, straight marriage will no more be endangered by gay marriage, than straight marriage is endangered by out of wed-lock gay sex

(Unless one of the two parties involved in the gay sex is also involved in a straight marriage; but then infidelity, not homosexuality, is the issue)

It is an old tactic with the christians, to claim to be the victims, even as they are the ones who attack, oppress, harass and even persecute others. Such christians, in other words, will try and justify their will to persecution, with slanderous allegations against whoever it is they choose to pick on.

(Well, upon reflection, christians aren't the only ones who resort to that sort of tactic: claim the other guy started it. But this thread is about the christian prohibition upon gay marriage, and since gay upholders of gay marriage do not demand the prohibition of christian marriage, they cannot fairly be accused of endangering that institution).

I have a question of my own: is it not the people who today oppose gay marriage, who used to say gays had too fickle & hyperactive a sex-life, multiple partners, quick-fix sex-encounters in seedy sauna houses...? If straight marriage brings stability to hitherto sexually over-active heterosexuals, then gay marriage should do the same for homosexuals. And if gays can be brought by marriage to dissociate themselves from 1970's style gay life styles, then they will cease being a "bad" exemple to bored heterosexual christians.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I have a question of my own: is it not the people who today oppose gay marriage, who used to say gays had too fickle & hyperactive a sex-life, multiple partners, quick-fix sex-encounters in seedy sauna houses...?


No. It is interesting that you join this debate and starting painting all the opponents of gay marriage as a specific kind of individual.

The people who oppose gay marriage likely have a variety of personal reasons, and since we don't have every person who opposes it here, it is very unfair of you to assign them motivations.

It would be similar to me saying "the people who want gay marriage are the same people who hate and despise christians, who want to tear down the fabric of christian society."

[Cameron Mineral]

Yes, it is true that christians aren't the only ones who oppose gay marriage; nor are christians the only ones who opposed the more colorful antics of San Francisco-style, gay-liberation-type gays: plenty of more conservative gays dislike that too. But Christians have been the driving force behind the movement to maintain the prohibition
on gay marriage, just as they have been at the forefront of opposition to the wilder sex-lifestyles of the pre-aids era. It is therefore only natural to link the two.

Besides, the issue originally raised by Newcaster is that of christians who believe gay marriage endangers straight marriage: that naturally brought to my mind the whole history of christian opposition to the so-called gay agenda.

If you disagree with gay marriage for reasons other than biblical, then surely you can say so without impuning my own right to contribute to this discussion.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If you disagree with gay marriage for reasons other than biblical, then surely you can say so without impuning my own right to contribute to this discussion.


I'm not impuning your right to contribute to this discussion, I am only pointing out that blaming christians makes your argument seem to be more likey rooted in some anti christian bias than in reality.

In reality, changing marriage to allow legal gay marriage does change marriage, so it does endanger the currently accepted (by a majority) definition of marriage.


Christians have been the driving force behind the movement to maintain the prohibition
on gay marriage

In a country that has a christian majority this claim can be made for almost any political action that has majority support.

And don't Christians have a right to have their voice heard in this country?

[Elrathin]

In reality, changing marriage to allow legal gay marriage does change marriage, so it does endanger the currently accepted (by a majority) definition of marriage.


How would it change YOUR marriage. I know it wouldn ot change a thing in mine. I love my wife and I am happy together with her. Gays being allowed to marry would change NONE of that and therefore would not change my marriage.

As for changing of a word, WHO CARES. Words change and get redefined all the time. Marriage was redefined many times in the past. IT used to be people married, not for love, but for property and power of families. That was redefined.

[cs0564]

If you disagree with gay marriage for reasons other than biblical, then surely you can say so without impuning my own right to contribute to this discussion.


Welcome Cameron! Everyone should have their own right to comment. I respect yours and I want to say that more than just Christians disagree with governemnt controlled gay marriage. Gay marriage happens everyday in this country. Most business disagree with it due to a multitude of reasons. From the data I have seen most Americans disagree with it. Most country's in the world disagree with it. Most politicians (both sides) disagree with it.

Why then should our governments at every level have to be burdened with governing gay marriage? Why should 2% of our populus dictate what the other 98% must do or accept? Not to say all gay's are child molesters. I understand that they are not, but those in NAMBLA are gay, right? What will you do if NAMBLA want's their right to marry young boys? Sound absurd? So did gay marriage 20 years ago.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

How would it change YOUR marriage.


That is inconsequential. We don't make laws based on individuals, but on society as a whole, and changing the definition of marriage does change society as a whole.


Words change and get redefined all the time. Marriage was redefined many times in the past.


Meaningless in the present discussion. Marriage has not been redefined often, and certainly not in modern times.


IT used to be people married, not for love, but for property and power of families. That was redefined.


More meaningless points. People marry for a variety of reasons even today. Arrainged ma