Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Impact of gay marriage (and child raising)?

Noel99
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 8:52:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hi, first time poster here.

So I wanted to start out by asking, what with it being almost three months over here in Britain since gay marriage was legalised, and with the ability of gay couples to raise children be it through adopting unwanted children or through using IVF/stem cell research being legal for ages, what has been the "impact" of those things being legal.

I ask this question because of course in the US there seems to have been something of an acceleration in state court decisions that have declared their previous bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional, which means by this point there's 22 US States and the District of Columbia where gay marriage has some degree of legality, and if this graph is anything to go by, more are going to follow suit with legalising gay marriage very quickly: http://en.wikipedia.org...

As someone that's travelled across the world, including to places like Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal and Canada where SSM is legal, I have not noticed any kind of meaningful effects of the detrimental kind of the nature that the "doom and gloom" merchants against SSM keep predicting will happen, and likewise where I live. Sure, when it got legalised here and in France, there were protests, but then afterwards, well, everyone just seems to get on with their lives really. Nowadays, the only times I'll hear about gay couples getting married is from any of my co-workers and friends, as well as if I choose to browse through any celebrity magazines.

So ultimately, it seems with gay marriage and gay raising of kids it really doesn't seem to cause any of the negatives that fundamentals and evangelicals think will happen, and all we get are net positives.

Thoughts?
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 6:58:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/2/2014 8:52:32 AM, Noel99 wrote:
Hi, first time poster here.

So I wanted to start out by asking, what with it being almost three months over here in Britain since gay marriage was legalised, and with the ability of gay couples to raise children be it through adopting unwanted children or through using IVF/stem cell research being legal for ages, what has been the "impact" of those things being legal.

I ask this question because of course in the US there seems to have been something of an acceleration in state court decisions that have declared their previous bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional, which means by this point there's 22 US States and the District of Columbia where gay marriage has some degree of legality, and if this graph is anything to go by, more are going to follow suit with legalising gay marriage very quickly: http://en.wikipedia.org...

As someone that's travelled across the world, including to places like Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal and Canada where SSM is legal, I have not noticed any kind of meaningful effects of the detrimental kind of the nature that the "doom and gloom" merchants against SSM keep predicting will happen, and likewise where I live. Sure, when it got legalised here and in France, there were protests, but then afterwards, well, everyone just seems to get on with their lives really. Nowadays, the only times I'll hear about gay couples getting married is from any of my co-workers and friends, as well as if I choose to browse through any celebrity magazines.

So ultimately, it seems with gay marriage and gay raising of kids it really doesn't seem to cause any of the negatives that fundamentals and evangelicals think will happen, and all we get are net positives.

Thoughts?

I haven't seen any studies conducted and/or funded by unbias sources (ie. not the Family Research Council) that show negative effects for children of gay parents beyond social stigma, which is not the parents' fault.
Noel99
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 5:18:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 6:58:50 AM, HumbleThinker1 wrote:
At 6/2/2014 8:52:32 AM, Noel99 wrote:
Hi, first time poster here.

So I wanted to start out by asking, what with it being almost three months over here in Britain since gay marriage was legalised, and with the ability of gay couples to raise children be it through adopting unwanted children or through using IVF/stem cell research being legal for ages, what has been the "impact" of those things being legal.

I ask this question because of course in the US there seems to have been something of an acceleration in state court decisions that have declared their previous bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional, which means by this point there's 22 US States and the District of Columbia where gay marriage has some degree of legality, and if this graph is anything to go by, more are going to follow suit with legalising gay marriage very quickly: http://en.wikipedia.org...

As someone that's travelled across the world, including to places like Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal and Canada where SSM is legal, I have not noticed any kind of meaningful effects of the detrimental kind of the nature that the "doom and gloom" merchants against SSM keep predicting will happen, and likewise where I live. Sure, when it got legalised here and in France, there were protests, but then afterwards, well, everyone just seems to get on with their lives really. Nowadays, the only times I'll hear about gay couples getting married is from any of my co-workers and friends, as well as if I choose to browse through any celebrity magazines.

So ultimately, it seems with gay marriage and gay raising of kids it really doesn't seem to cause any of the negatives that fundamentals and evangelicals think will happen, and all we get are net positives.

Thoughts?

I haven't seen any studies conducted and/or funded by unbias sources (ie. not the Family Research Council) that show negative effects for children of gay parents beyond social stigma, which is not the parents' fault.

Indeed. Nor any negative effects of gay marriage, which is extremely odd when you think about it, considering how often those sorts of people scream about how gay marriage will destroy the fabric of society (and considering some of the reactions I've seen and heard from certain media outlets, that's not actually that much of an exaggeration of their arguments). It's not like, even in the US, they've even managed to drag out any "horror stories" I've seen in the states where gay marriage is legal. Everything just seems to proceed perfectly fine. And the arguments against gay marriage just seem to get weaker and weaker the more I observe the court cases there.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 5:37:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What is the relation between adoption and marriage?

Are genders interchangeable in the former and different in the later?
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 5:43:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 5:18:07 AM, Noel99 wrote:

Indeed. Nor any negative effects of gay marriage, which is extremely odd when you think about it, considering how often those sorts of people scream about how gay marriage will destroy the fabric of society (and considering some of the reactions I've seen and heard from certain media outlets, that's not actually that much of an exaggeration of their arguments). It's not like, even in the US, they've even managed to drag out any "horror stories" I've seen in the states where gay marriage is legal. Everything just seems to proceed perfectly fine. And the arguments against gay marriage just seem to get weaker and weaker the more I observe the court cases there.

Pretty much. The trick, for fundamentalists who claim that our country will fall because of divine punishment, is that they can simply continue to say that indefinitely . When it doesn't happen, they can simply claim it will happen soon or at God's whim. When it does finally happen, even if it is 100+ years from now, they can claim that it was divine punishment for gay marriage despite the large chronological gap between the cause and effect, invoking "A thousands years for man is but a day to God." And there will always be people who will eat it up no matter what just like there are people whowill continue to believe end-times predictions a "prophet" or group has makes no matter how many times they have made failed predictions.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 5:45:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 5:37:54 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
What is the relation between adoption and marriage?

Are genders interchangeable in the former and different in the later?

What point are you trying to make? I don't think I understand your questions or at least their point.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 5:48:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 5:45:51 AM, HumbleThinker1 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 5:37:54 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
What is the relation between adoption and marriage?

Are genders interchangeable in the former and different in the later?

What point are you trying to make? I don't think I understand your questions or at least their point.

It seems that a connection between adoption and marriage is assumed in this thread. I would like to further examine and learn about this connection.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 6:26:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 5:48:00 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
It seems that a connection between adoption and marriage is assumed in this thread. I : would like to further examine and learn about this connection.

Oh ok. For some reason, I read your post as saying "abortion and marriage" instead of adoption. I could not figure out what your point could possibly be, so I read it a few more times and somehow still came up with abortion :p
Noel99
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 9:30:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 5:37:54 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
What is the relation between adoption and marriage?

Are genders interchangeable in the former and different in the later?

Well, the term I used was "raising of kids", so while adoption's covered by that, you've also got kids who are created when, say, a female consents to be a surrogate so that a male homosexual couple can have biological offspring, and also when a male consents to a sperm donor so that a female homosexual couple can have biological offspring.

As for the relation, well generally marriage tends to produce a whole lot of benefits to couples who are raising kids. This is a pretty good place to look at for the basics on how children benefit from being raised by a married couple.

And yes, I'd say it matters not in raising kids whether the legal human couple who agrees to raise the children is male/female, male/male, or female/female. As long as they're committed to ensuring the children are well cared for and that they will live a good quality of life, that's all that matters. Similarly marriage. As long as you've got two adult humans who actually want to get married to each other (and aren't being forced against their will to do it) then again it doesn't matter whether it's male/female, male/male, or female/female. And all the reliable academic studies appear to agree on that front.

May I ask your take on this, and if you're against gay people being married and raising kids, can I ask why that is even though there isn't anything to show any ill effects in other areas that those are legal?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 11:57:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 9:30:14 AM, Noel99 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 5:37:54 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
What is the relation between adoption and marriage?

Are genders interchangeable in the former and different in the later?

Well, the term I used was "raising of kids", so while adoption's covered by that, you've also got kids who are created when, say, a female consents to be a surrogate so that a male homosexual couple can have biological offspring, and also when a male consents to a sperm donor so that a female homosexual couple can have biological offspring.

Interesting. I'll try to avoid generalization.

As for the relation, well generally marriage tends to produce a whole lot of benefits to couples who are raising kids. This is a pretty good place to look at for the basics on how children benefit from being raised by a married couple.

Why don't single parents, or two siblings who are taking care of children get the same benefits?

And yes, I'd say it matters not in raising kids whether the legal human couple who agrees to raise the children is male/female, male/male, or female/female. As long as they're committed to ensuring the children are well cared for and that they will live a good quality of life, that's all that matters. Similarly marriage. As long as you've got two adult humans who actually want to get married to each other (and aren't being forced against their will to do it) then again it doesn't matter whether it's male/female, male/male, or female/female. And all the reliable academic studies appear to agree on that front.

I agree with the adoption, what matters is a stable, positive environment and whatnot.

For the second point, however, I object. You are assuming that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Can you define the two terms?

May I ask your take on this, and if you're against gay people being married and raising kids, can I ask why that is even though there isn't anything to show any ill effects in other areas that those are legal?

Homosexual marriage makes no sense legally.
Why should homosexual marriage be legalized? Because "they love each other"?
Noel99
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 12:25:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 11:57:00 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 6/5/2014 9:30:14 AM, Noel99 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 5:37:54 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
What is the relation between adoption and marriage?

Are genders interchangeable in the former and different in the later?

Well, the term I used was "raising of kids", so while adoption's covered by that, you've also got kids who are created when, say, a female consents to be a surrogate so that a male homosexual couple can have biological offspring, and also when a male consents to a sperm donor so that a female homosexual couple can have biological offspring.

Interesting. I'll try to avoid generalization.

As for the relation, well generally marriage tends to produce a whole lot of benefits to couples who are raising kids. This is a pretty good place to look at for the basics on how children benefit from being raised by a married couple.

Why don't single parents, or two siblings who are taking care of children get the same benefits?

I just noticed I forgot to add in the link I meant to use: http://www.marriageequality.org... here you go. Also, marriage is a contract, and a whole load of legal contractual stuff mandated by the government. Likewise having custody of a child.

And yes, I'd say it matters not in raising kids whether the legal human couple who agrees to raise the children is male/female, male/male, or female/female. As long as they're committed to ensuring the children are well cared for and that they will live a good quality of life, that's all that matters. Similarly marriage. As long as you've got two adult humans who actually want to get married to each other (and aren't being forced against their will to do it) then again it doesn't matter whether it's male/female, male/male, or female/female. And all the reliable academic studies appear to agree on that front.

I agree with the adoption, what matters is a stable, positive environment and whatnot.

For the second point, however, I object. You are assuming that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Can you define the two terms?

Uh, sure. Heterosexuality is where there's romance, sexual attraction and/or sexual behaviour between however many people of the male gender to however many people of the female gender. Homosexuality, obviously, is the same, albeit with male/male and female/female. In the context of marriage, we naturally also include the highly important factor of consent and being of legal age, as well as of course the two persons being unrelated (I'll elaborate on that further) and indeed the fact that it's two persons.

May I ask your take on this, and if you're against gay people being married and raising kids, can I ask why that is even though there isn't anything to show any ill effects in other areas that those are legal?

Homosexual marriage makes no sense legally.

That's a little bit too much of a blanket assertion, and something that's clearly not currently reflected in the courts. Could you elaborate?

Why should homosexual marriage be legalized? Because "they love each other"?

Uh, among other things, the fact that it's already happening around the world and there's been nothing but net positives as a result, and all the negative predictions have failed to come to pass. Beyond that, issues of equal rights, civil unions aren't the same as marriages, there's such a thing as separation of church and state (ie: most of the arguments against gay marriage are based on superstition and not grounded in reality), it will help reduce stigma against homosexuals as with it becoming the norm people will become more accepting of them, increases the number of "married" couples who can adopt children (since a lot of adoption agencies only allow a couple to adopt if they are married), the whole issue of hospital visitation and medical information rights, will help decrease suicides of people who feel isolated against for being gay, and of course the fact it doesn't affect heterosexuals and heterosexual couples already in marriages whatsoever.

Plus, take a good look at the arguments against Same Sex Marriage. They're alarmingly similar to the ones used against interracial marriage: http://37.media.tumblr.com... and we all know how that turned out.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 4:03:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As for the relation, well generally marriage tends to produce a whole lot of benefits to couples who are raising kids. This is a pretty good place to look at for the basics on how children benefit from being raised by a married couple.

Why don't single parents, or two siblings who are taking care of children get the same benefits?

I just noticed I forgot to add in the link I meant to use: http://www.marriageequality.org... here you go. Also, marriage is a contract, and a whole load of legal contractual stuff mandated by the government. Likewise having custody of a child.

You didn't answer my question. Why don't single parents or siblings who adopt children get the same economical benefits as people who are married.

The link describes what would happen if homosexuality was legalized. It implies that homosexuality should be legalized and that it is equal to heterosexuality.
It does not explain why homosexuality should be legalized.

Uh, sure. Heterosexuality is where there's romance, sexual attraction and/or sexual behaviour between however many people of the male gender to however many people of the female gender. Homosexuality, obviously, is the same, albeit with male/male and female/female. In the context of marriage, we naturally also include the highly important factor of consent and being of legal age, as well as of course the two persons being unrelated (I'll elaborate on that further) and indeed the fact that it's two persons.

You are mixing up different definitions into a more complex one. Evidently by the need to add "and/or".

"homosexuality": same-gender sexual behavior.
"homosexual": a person who defines self by the participation or the desire to participate in homosexual behavior.

"Orientation": the perspective of a subject toward an object.
"Sexual orientation": a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted to.

There can be unlimited amount of sexual orientations: Same-gender, Different-Gender, Children, Pain, Feet, etc... They are all equal via. freedom of thoughts. They have no weight or impact to others unless they affect behavior.
The LGBT movement only recognizes four orientations other than heterosexuality. Why? Because if they recognize zoophilia or pedophilia for example, this would draw the importance of distinguishing between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
This is the core of the sophistry; diminishing the distinction.

Now, here is what is different about heterosexuality: It is immutable.
To define heterosexuality as a sexual behavior between members of the two genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about being human. All human beings (with the exception of medical cases like hermaphrodites) are either males or females, each with their respective reproductive system. In other words, biologically, and by any objective means, heterosexual. All our sexual feelings and desires are rooted on that heterosexual design.

For homosexuality to be equivalent to heterosexuality, homosexuals must have their own unique gender or physiology. Thus, members of sexual orientations are simply humans, who are biologically heterosexual, who prefer to engage in a certain sexual behavior.


May I ask your take on this, and if you're against gay people being married and raising kids, can I ask why that is even though there isn't anything to show any ill effects in other areas that those are legal?

Homosexual marriage makes no sense legally.

That's a little bit too much of a blanket assertion, and something that's clearly not currently reflected in the courts. Could you elaborate?


Let get this clear first: The law does not care about romance and love. It is simply indifferent to it. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you; you can love your family, your friends, and whoever romantically or non-romantically. However, there is no check-box that says: "In love" in any official paper.
Love is just like adultery, parties, BDSM, etc.. in the sense that there is no right to them. Sure, you can argue that they are a PRIVATE right that you are perfectly free to do in your free time with the consent of any parties involved. However it is not something the government endorse or spends taxes on to encourage.

Unfair discrimination in a civil right sense is treating equal parties unequally. However, the law applies to every citizen. What is being asked are not equal rights, but special rights toward a specific culture behavior because it's members wish to be rewarded simply for performing it.
Really, it is a private behavior with no direct impact on society. Why does the government or anyone have to recognize, let alone reward, it?

Why should homosexual marriage be legalized? Because "they love each other"?

Uh, among other things, the fact that it's already happening around the world and there's been nothing but net positives as a result, and all the negative predictions have failed to come to pass. Beyond that, issues of equal rights, civil unions aren't the same as marriages, there's such a thing as separation of church and state (ie: most of the arguments against gay marriage are based on superstition and not grounded in reality), it will help reduce stigma against homosexuals as with it becoming the norm people will become more accepting of them, increases the number of "married" couples who can adopt children (since a lot of adoption agencies only allow a couple to adopt if they are married), the whole issue of hospital visitation and medical information rights, will help decrease suicides of people who feel isolated against for being gay, and of course the fact it doesn't affect heterosexuals and heterosexual couples already in marriages whatsoever.

Plus, take a good look at the arguments against Same Sex Marriage. They're alarmingly similar to the ones used against interracial marriage: http://37.media.tumblr.com... and we all know how that turned out.

Please list the social benefits being a homosexual relationship provide to society.

Here is my reaction to your reasons:

1- They should be rewarded from tax dollars simply for loving each other and regularly performing private activities in bedrooms that have zero direct impact on society.
2- It is popular, so we should follow.
3- There are net-positive results. (please explain)
4- Slippery slope was used, thus it should be legalized via. the fallacy fallacy.
5- The best way to reduce stigma against homosexuality is to pretend and convince everyone that it is equal to heterosexuality.
6- This will allow homosexuals to find loopholes in the rules of private adoption organizations.
7- Allow more flexible hospital visits and regulations.
8- decrease suicide and depression among homosexuals.

The only points that make sense are 3, 7, and 8.
#3 requires explanation.
As for #7, the government isn't obligated to recognize a private contract. Essentially, a homosexual contract is the same as a friendship contract. But I don't see much problem in simply making hospital visits easier.
For #8, suicide ratios in countries and cities where homosexuality is very much accepted haven't changed and about the same with other places, so we can't just blame "homophobia". Thus the point is dropped. Assuming suicide prevention requires affirming a patient's behavior or tendencies makes no sense.

The comparison chart is bogus as the tactics and goal between same-sex marriage proponents and the racial segregation folks is similar. They wanted to force the state to redefine the definition of marriage, while opponents simply wanted the state to recognize the basic definition of marriage.

Skin color is benign, but sexual behavior is not. The only way to identify a homosexual is via. the person's own behavior or association. Civil rights are based on beings, while
Noel99
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 3:21:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 4:03:41 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
You didn't answer my question. Why don't single parents or siblings who adopt children get the same economical benefits as people who are married.

Because marriage is much more complex than the "traditional marriage" folks make it out to be. It's not just two consenting adults saying "I Do", it's a whole load of other legal stuff as well. I didn't make the law, take it up with those who did.

The link describes what would happen if homosexuality was legalized. It implies that homosexuality should be legalized and that it is equal to heterosexuality.
It does not explain why homosexuality should be legalized.

Can you use the correct terms please? Homosexuality, the ability to perform homosexual acts, is already legal. Gay marriage, what we're actually talking about, isn't in some areas of the world. As for arguments for marriage, here's another link, one that comprehensively debunks the arguments against SSM while explaining why SSM should be legal.

You are mixing up different definitions into a more complex one. Evidently by the need to add "and/or".

"homosexuality": same-gender sexual behavior.
"homosexual": a person who defines self by the participation or the desire to participate in homosexual behavior.

"Orientation": the perspective of a subject toward an object.
"Sexual orientation": a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted to.

I was simply pointing out that the definitions are more complex than your simplistic version, especially in the context of the debate we're having.

There can be unlimited amount of sexual orientations: Same-gender, Different-Gender, Children, Pain, Feet, etc... They are all equal via. freedom of thoughts. They have no weight or impact to others unless they affect behavior.

Pain and Feet are "fetishes", not orientations, there's a difference.

The LGBT movement only recognizes four orientations other than heterosexuality. Why? Because if they recognize zoophilia or pedophilia for example, this would draw the importance of distinguishing between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.

No, because the orientations being recognised by the gay community all involve consent. The common mistake the Anti-SSM crowd make is to conflate homosexuality with orientations where legal consent is impossible.

Now, here is what is different about heterosexuality: It is immutable.
To define heterosexuality as a sexual behavior between members of the two genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about being human. All human beings (with the exception of medical cases like hermaphrodites) are either males or females, each with their respective reproductive system. In other words, biologically, and by any objective means, heterosexual. All our sexual feelings and desires are rooted on that heterosexual design.

For homosexuality to be equivalent to heterosexuality, homosexuals must have their own unique gender or physiology. Thus, members of sexual orientations are simply humans, who are biologically heterosexual, who prefer to engage in a certain sexual behavior.

Uh, nope. My feet are in theory meant for walking on the ground, but that doesn't mean I can't design modes of transport that will help me get to destinations far quicker (eg: planes, trains, cars). Hell, if I get terminally lazy and decide I never want to walk again, I can just decide to either use my friend's spare wheelchair for the rest of my life or get to work designing one of those hover-chairs you see in sci-fi movies. My hands are also in theory designed for picking up stuff, but it doesn't mean I can't do handstands. In your argument, because our bodies aren't designed a certain way, to put it as Justin Lee puts it here https://www.gaychristian.net... , it also means that "we'd have to condemn wheelchairs, makeup, open-heart surgery, bicycles, acrobatics, pre-packaged foods... well, you get the idea".

Also, your argument isn't an argument against marriage, it's an argument against actually being gay. And if we turn that argument around, it can just as easily be argued that since we're born without any knowledge of God, being an atheist is therefore the default position and being religious is a behaviour. And yet we protect the rights of the "choice" and "behaviour" that the religious display, even though plenty arguments could be used about how damaging the choice and behaviour of the religious are to society. Plus, the "homosexuality deviating from the norm" argument doesn't make sense, otherwise I might as well ask when you chose to be straight. I'll highlight this editorial: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . Long story short, if being gay truly is a willing deviating from the so-called "norm", then gay conversion therapy and other means of trying to turn gay people into straight people should work, and it's difficult to see why anyone would "choose" to be gay considering the level of harassment and bullying gay people receive, not to mention the numerous gay kids who have been kicked out by their parents, abandoned by people they used to consider friends, and even assaulted and murdered, because of being gay. There are people who are gay in countries like Russia and Uganda, among others, where it is currently very dangerous to be gay at the moment. So to repeat the question as it's phrased in the link, "At what time and on what date did you choose to be straight? Not when you realized you were the orientation you are, and not when you chose to act on your orientation, but when you chose to be that way."

Bear in mind as well, we've invented technology that easily solves the reproduction problem that would have been a hindrance 100 years ago. The vast majority of gay people are not sterile, and artificial insemination and surrogate mothers have existed for a while now, and many a gay couple's used those means to produce children for years. Plus, of course, well, adoption allowing any couple to take on unwanted children. The "having kids" issue is no longer even an issue.

Also, "having kids" is not a requirement for marriage. There's no law that says you need to either have kids or plan to have kids in order to get married. Case in point infertile couples and couples who just plain choose not to have kids, and reproduction happens without marriage all the damn time.

Even if your argument is true, it doesn't matter. We don't routinely ban things for being "choices" or being outside the "natural" order.
Noel99
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 4:32:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 4:03:41 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Let get this clear first: The law does not care about romance and love. <snip for space>

Sure, but it's generally expected that if the two of you have decided you're going to get married, then actually wanting to get married and continue getting married, then the fact that you actually like one another enough to do so is generally considered a healthy sign. Plus, generally any marriage vows will include the "L" word in abundance.

Love is just like adultery, parties, BDSM, etc.. I <snip for space>

Again, those are fetishes, different to orientations. Again, when did you choose to be overall straight?

Unfair discrimination in a civil right sense is treating equal parties unequally. However, the law applies to every citizen. What is being asked are not equal rights, but special rights <snip for space>.

It's not "special rights". I'll quote a website that's sadly no longer available but which I do have saved on my computer.

"On its face, the term "special rights" doesn't even make sense. If something is a right, it isn't "special." It belongs to everybody. And according to the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia, marriage is a fundamental right. Yet, the anti-gay extremists trumpet this "special rights" meme every time gays attempt to attain or retain any type of equal treatment, in an apparent effort to try to convince people that gays are trying to get something that other people don't have.

In fact, it's obvious in the case of marriage that the only group that could be considered to have a "special" right is heterosexuals. They can get married. Gays (at least in a good many areas) cannot. What these people should be saying is that they want their own right to remain "special" by preventing gays from attaining equality."

If gay people get marriage rights, it's not a special right because the law will apply equally. Assuming you're male, if you want to, you can marry a man. Similarly, any females you know will have the right to marry females. Under a new law, everyone has a right to marry a consenting adult person of either gender. So it's not a "special right" being granted, it's just a "right".

Really, it is a private behavior with no direct impact on society. <snip for space>

If it has no impact on society, then why not recognise gay marriage and allow it to happen? This might be useful to you: http://www.cracked.com...

Please list the social benefits being a homosexual relationship provide to society.

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org...

Here is my reaction to your reasons:

1- They should be rewarded from tax dollars simply for loving each other and regularly performing private activities in bedrooms that have zero direct impact on society.

No more absurd than rewarding tax dollars to heterosexuals for exactly the same reasons, especially if they either can't or won't have children.

2- It is popular, so we should follow.

No, more the case that there's a consistent case of it being legalised around the world and none of the negative predictions come true and there's just net positives. Such consistent results indicates the US should get with the times.

3- There are net-positive results. (please explain)

http://thinkprogress.org...
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...

4- Slippery slope was used, thus it should be legalized via. the fallacy fallacy.

If you claim there are actual negative effects of gay marriage, highlight them, otherwise your objection is moot.

5- The best way to reduce stigma against homosexuality is to pretend and convince everyone that it is equal to heterosexuality.

It is equal. No compelling evidence has been shown to demonstrate otherwise.

6- This will allow homosexuals to find loopholes in the rules of private adoption organizations.

Why do you care more about the agencies than the children? My argument is that since we'll have more married couples, we can provide more homes to those unwanted children who are currently marooned in adoption agencies because of a high amount of rules and regulations and red tape.

7- Allow more flexible hospital visits and regulations.

Do you see nothing wrong with the current rules where hospitals end up not allowing gay people to visit their partners in hospital or receive medical information about their partners who they care about? How would you feel if you were denied marriage and couldn't visit or get medical information about your partner who you care about?

8- decrease suicide and depression among homosexuals.

And what's wrong with that.

As for #7, the government isn't obligated to recognize a private contract. Essentially, a homosexual contract is the same as a friendship contract. But I don't see much problem in simply making hospital visits easier.

Or why not just take a simpler route and allow gay marriage to happen? Why the big need to segregate homosexuals? The government's obligated to recognise such contracts for the same reason it does for straight people. Gay people can love each other, have kids with one another, and function in society just as well as straight couples, but for some bizarre reason current laws in certain states in the US and elsewhere don't appear to think so, even though there's no evidence to counter the notion that they are in fact equal. You're not providing any compelling evidence as to why we should deny such rights.

For #8, suicide ratios in countries and cities where homosexuality is very much accepted haven't changed and about the same with other places, so we can't just blame "homophobia". Thus the point is dropped. Assuming suicide prevention requires affirming a patient's behavior or tendencies makes no sense.

You're gonna have to provide me some stats on that one.

The comparison chart is bogus as the tactics and goal between same-sex marriage proponents and the racial segregation folks is similar. They wanted to force the state to redefine the definition of marriage, while opponents simply wanted the state to recognize the basic definition of marriage.

There's no redefinition of marriage happening here. I'll allow the website's data which I saved on my computer to help me out here:

"The definition of "marriage" has never been static in any case, and at any given moment, different people already have different ideas of what it means. In some cultures marriages are still arranged. In the past, marriages have been used to end wars or seal treaties. It was once expected that the father of a bride would be paid a dowry for the privilege of marrying her. In the early 20th century it was unheard of to have two working parents, but by the end of the 20th century it was common. Definitions and ideas change over time.

The atomic unit of a society is the individual.

Plus, at the time of Loving v Virginia, the definition of marriage WAS that men and women could only marry inside their own race. The pro-segregation people WERE sticking to what the legal definition of marriage was. All that gets changed is we have two humans of legal age who agree to be with one another. And we've seen nothing but positives when other US states and other countries including the UK legalise gay marriage.
Noel99
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 4:44:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 4:03:41 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Skin color is benign, but sexual behavior is not. The only way to identify a homosexual is via. the person's own behavior or association. Civil rights are based on beings, while

Your argument cut off here, but you're wrong, as you're assuming traditional gender roles, namely that men must act "manly" and women act "feminine" (in other words that they conform to strict gender traits). But focusing on just the male gender, not all "manly" men are straight, and not all men who do things that fit in feminine stereotypes are gay. If one sees a man without a woman or another man by his side in a bar, regardless of whether he fits the "manly" or "feminine" stereotypes, it is still impossible to tell (without asking) whether that man is heterosexual or homosexual, thus exactly the same logic about "behaviour" and "association" have to apply to heterosexuals. Plus, there's still no compelling reason to discriminate and deny equal rights, regardless of whether your stance holds true.
Noel99
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 6:41:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 3:21:17 AM, Noel99 wrote:
Can you use the correct terms please? Homosexuality, the ability to perform homosexual acts, is already legal. Gay marriage, what we're actually talking about, isn't in some areas of the world. As for arguments for marriage, here's another link, one that comprehensively debunks the arguments against SSM while explaining why SSM should be legal.

Crap, I forgot to add the link: http://rationalist.org.uk... there we go.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 1:48:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 3:21:17 AM, Noel99 wrote:
Because marriage is much more complex than the "traditional marriage" folks make it out to be. It's not just two consenting adults saying "I Do", it's a whole load of other legal stuff as well. I didn't make the law, take it up with those who did.

The question is why should the privilege of homosexual marriage be legalized. Is it a "cash-grab"?

Can you use the correct terms please? Homosexuality, the ability to perform homosexual acts, is already legal. Gay marriage, what we're actually talking about, isn't in some areas of the world. As for arguments for marriage, here's another link, one that comprehensively debunks the arguments against SSM while explaining why SSM should be legal.

Almost everyone is capable of performing homosexual acts. Almost everyone is capable of performing heterosexual acts. Almost everyone is capable of performing bestiality acts.
It seems you forgot to add the link.

I was simply pointing out that the definitions are more complex than your simplistic version, especially in the context of the debate we're having.

I didn't provide a definition back then. Your version is flawed that requires constant exceptions when dealing with other sexual orientations.

Pain and Feet are "fetishes", not orientations, there's a difference.

And fetishes are sexual orientations as they are sexual preferences.

No, because the orientations being recognised by the gay community all involve consent. The common mistake the Anti-SSM crowd make is to conflate homosexuality with orientations where legal consent is impossible.

You did the exact same thing I mentioned. You are trying to mix between sexual orientation and behavior while talking about the LGBT while making sure there are clear distinction when talking about other orientations.
Here I was only talking about orientations. If homosexuals were "born that way". then they were "born that way" too.

Uh, nope. My feet are in theory meant for walking on the ground, but that doesn't mean I can't design modes of transport that will help me get to destinations far quicker *Removed for character limit*

Strawman. My argument is not "heterosexuality is superior because it is natural", my argument works to prove that homosexuality is NOT equal to heterosexuality. Whether it is superior and in what areas superiority exists can be interfered by other methods.

I am not Christian, and my arguments have been secular thus far.

Also, your argument isn't an argument against marriage, it's an argument against actually being gay. And if we turn that argument around, it can just as easily be argued that since we're born without any knowledge of God, being an atheist is therefore the default position and being religious is a behaviour. And yet we protect the rights of the "choice" and "behaviour" that the religious display, even though plenty arguments could be used about how damaging the choice and behaviour of the religious are to society. Plus, the "homosexuality deviating from the norm" argument doesn't make sense, otherwise I might as well ask when you chose to be straight. I'll highlight this editorial: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . Long story short, if being gay truly is a willing deviating from the so-called "norm", then gay conversion therapy and other means of trying to turn gay people into straight people should work, and it's difficult to see why anyone would "choose" to be gay considering the level of harassment and bullying gay people receive, not to mention the numerous gay kids who have been kicked out by their parents, abandoned by people they used to consider friends, and even assaulted and murdered, because of being gay. There are people who are gay in countries like Russia and Uganda, among others, where it is currently very dangerous to be gay at the moment. So to repeat the question as it's phrased in the link, "At what time and on what date did you choose to be straight? Not when you realized you were the orientation you are, and not when you chose to act on your orientation, but when you chose to be that way."

Aha, cause babies are totally capable of abstract reasoning and thoughts once they are bornz89;and what people believe in is objective and immutable.

Once again, I never argued against orientation or what people do privately. My argument is against government endorsement of a socially useless private behavior, and enforcing society to affirm a behavior.
Orientation, or a person"s inclination toward a form of sexual conduct, may for any number of reason not be a conscious choice. However every sex is a conscious choice unless rape is involved.

As for me being straight, I've been so as long as I remember. I cannot affirm whether nature or nurture is dominant without research. A Pedophile can give the same answer.
If sexual behavior have nothing to do with it, what stops pedophiles from claiming equality?

Here is a joke:
"Q:" How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
"A:" Only one, but the bulb has to really WANT to change.
"A:" None, the bulb will change itself when it is ready.

When people are affected by unfounded assertions such as "Homosexuality (as a behavior) is unchangeable" and doubt that they can change, of course they won't change. If people can be talked into it, then why can"t they be talked out of it?
Logically and psychologically, every state of mind is potentially changeable. You may potentially change your taste in food.

Why do we expect pedophiles to resist their desires but not homosexuals? Because we know pedophiles are human beings who can choose not to act on their sexual desires just like anyone else.

And then there is "Nobody would choose" argument, which is of course meaningless. There are many people who do anti-social behavior and choose lifestyles others condemn.

Bear in mind as well, we've invented technology that easily solves the reproduction problem that would have been a hindrance 100 years ago. The vast majority of gay people are not sterile, and artificial insemination and surrogate mothers have existed for a while now, and many a gay couple's used those means to produce children for years. Plus, of course, well, adoption allowing any couple to take on unwanted children. The "having kids" issue is no longer even an issue.

Still doesn't explain the point behind tax money being paid for two same-sex couples being together. Any single person can do the above.

Also, "having kids" is not a requirement for marriage. There's no law that says you need to either have kids or plan to have kids in order to get married. Case in point infertile couples and couples who just plain choose not to have kids, and reproduction happens without marriage all the damn time.

The reason for giving marriage benefit is to encourage relationships, thus increase the potential of social benefits generally resulting from heterosexual relationships, which is more citizens and future tax payers born in a stable environment.
It is not about forcing, regulating, or attempting to get a crazy 100% ratio. It is about encouraging, because lets face it, society needs children to survive.

Even if your argument is true, it doesn't matter. We don't routinely ban things for being "choices" or being outside the "natural" order.

And we don't routinely reward people with tax for doing private "choices".
My argument isn't about banning homosexuality; I don't care what legal and consensual things people do in privacy. It is about the government not endorsing it.
Noel99
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2014 5:20:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 1:48:24 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The question is why should the privilege of homosexual marriage be legalized. Is it a "cash-grab"?

For the same reason heterosexual marriage is legalised. It's a demonstrable right.

Almost everyone is capable of performing homosexual acts. Almost everyone is capable of performing heterosexual acts. Almost everyone is capable of performing bestiality acts.
It seems you forgot to add the link.

Two of those involve actually possible consent. The third does not. Here is the link that I forgot to add: http://rationalist.org.uk...

I didn't provide a definition back then. Your version is flawed <snip>

No, my definition makes it perfectly clear exactly what homosexual marriage entails: that two consenting (at or above the legal age) non-related human beings of the same gender. It highlights the fact that the slippery slope has never come to fruition in any of the places where gay marriage is legal.

You did the exact same thing I mentioned. <snip>
Whatever. But the C word is still all important here. Marriages between heterosexual and homosexual people of male, female, and trans genders of legal ages all involve consent. That's the main thing that matters, as well as the fact that no observed ill effect has ever occurred from homosexuals being granted the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.

Strawman. My argument is not "heterosexuality is superior because it is natural", my argument works to prove that homosexuality is NOT equal to heterosexuality. <snip>

How does your argument demonstrate homosexuality to be not equal or inferior? An appeal to what our organs were supposedly biologically "designed" for doesn't mean anything, because my argument counters yours by pointing out that our bodies weren't designed for all the things we have in today's society that we use to bypass what they were supposedly designed for, and yet we're not saying that our "biologically natural" purposes in our bodies are somehow superior to what also exists that is supposedly "unnatural".

Aha, cause babies are totally capable of abstract reasoning and thoughts once they are bornz89;and what people believe in is objective and immutable.

It doesn't need to just apply to babies. As you get older and your brain becomes more developed, there's still absolutely no guarantee, depending on where you live in the world, and who you're surrounded by, if you'll ever get any sort of exposure to specific Gods, or indeed any. Thus, it's certainly not "natural" to be a Christian, or a Muslim, or any other religious belief. I can create right now the idea of a supernatural entity I have never heard of before and never would have had any reason to believe in it, say a Sparkly Mosquitonicorn (a cross between a mosquito and unicorn) of Divine Firey Light. I have never heard of such a supernatural entity up to now, and I have no reason to believe in it, so obviously the default position, when never having heard of supernatural entities, is to not believe they exist.

Once again, I never argued against orientation or what people do privately. My argument is against government endorsement of a socially useless private behavior, and enforcing society to affirm a behavior.

I've presented evidence to show it's not socially useless and that there are benefits, and governments letting gay people get married isn't affirming a behaviour. Or do you think that the government letting fundies marry and picket funerals and use platforms to spread hate speech is also the government "affirming behaviours"? Not to mention the pro-segregation side using the whole "government affirming behaviours" argument back when interracial marriage was being discussed prior to Loving v Virginia, and we all know how valid that argument turned out to be.

Orientation, or a person"s inclination toward a form of sexual conduct, may for any number of reason not be a conscious choice. However every sex is a conscious choice unless rape is involved.

And what is wrong with acting on a sexual choice involving consent and not being inter-related?

As for me being straight, I've been so as long as I remember. I cannot affirm whether nature or nurture is dominant without research. A Pedophile can give the same answer.

Is that when you realised, and when you decided to be that way? Also, a paedophile's "partner" wouldn't be able to give you the same answer, because they wouldn't be able to consent. That's the difference.

If sexual behavior have nothing to do with it, what stops pedophiles from claiming equality?

Consent on the part of BOTH parties. Homosexuals can claim this, paedophiles cannot.

Here is a joke:
"Q:" How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
"A:" Only one, but the bulb has to really WANT to change.
"A:" None, the bulb will change itself when it is ready.

When people are affected by unfounded assertions such as "Homosexuality (as a behavior) is unchangeable" and doubt that they can change, of course they won't change. If people can be talked into it, then why can"t they be talked out of it?
Logically and psychologically, every state of mind is potentially changeable. You may potentially change your taste in food.

Why do we expect pedophiles to resist their desires but not homosexuals? Because we know pedophiles are human beings who can choose not to act on their sexual desires just like anyone else.

So why do continuous studies show that gay conversion therapy has never worked?

And then there is "Nobody would choose" argument, which is of course meaningless. <snip>

For example? And also, do you really think any gay people would clamour for the sort of fate Matthew Shepard received? http://en.wikipedia.org... . That's the kind of stuff that can happen just for being gay. Why would anyone put themselves at the risk of being murdered, tortured, or harassed and bullied to the point of wanting to commit suicide? Your argument is nonsense.

Still doesn't explain the point behind tax money being paid for two same-sex couples being together. Any single person can do the above.

The economic benefits outweigh what the government spends on it: http://www.learnvest.com... Nice try though.

The reason for giving marriage benefit is to encourage relationships, thus increase the potential of social benefits generally resulting from heterosexual relationships, which is more citizens and future tax payers born in a stable environment.

So why segregate homosexuals from that environment?

It is not about forcing, regulating, or attempting to get a crazy 100% ratio. <snip>

Children whom gay couples are perfectly capable of raising, children who thus deserve a stable environment with their gay parents.

And we don't routinely reward people with tax for doing private "choices".
My argument isn't about banning homosexuality; I don't care what legal and consensual things people do in privacy. It is about the government not endorsing it.

You haven't explained what's even wrong with any government endorsement of homosexuals getting married. Plus you forget to show any sort of problem with the fact that straight couples can drunkenly get married to one another and then annul their weddings. Britney Spears even got married to Jason Alexander for a single weekend. Straight couples also get married where some particularly unsavoury individuals are involved. Marriages that by your very logic, the government endorses. Yet you display no problem with those "behaviours" being endorsed by the government. Why should straight drunken Vegas weddings be endorsed but not homosexual weddings?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2014 2:58:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 4:32:14 AM, Noel99 wrote:
Sure, but it's generally expected that if the two of you have decided you're going to get married, then actually wanting to get married and continue getting married, then the fact that you actually like one another enough to do so is generally considered a healthy sign. Plus, generally any marriage vows will include the "L" word in abundance.

A very large chunk of marriages are arranged in which love is not a main reason or purpose.
Historically, marriages for love were done privately in the church. But state supported marriages rarely had love as a reason (manage inheritance, preserve family name, to seal a political or social union etc..)

Again, those are fetishes, different to orientations. Again, when did you choose to be overall straight?

I added adultery and private social events like parties in the middle. Are there a public right to them? Is tax-money spent on them?
You are ambiguous as usual, do you mean orientation or behavior?

It's not "special rights". I'll quote a website that's sadly no longer available but which I do have saved on my computer.

"On its face, the term "special rights" doesn't even make sense. If something is a right, it isn't "special." *Cut for space*

it says homosexuals cannot get married, but if same-sex marriage is legalized heterosexuals can get married to the same sex. SMH.

It is a special right because it favors a cultural behavior over an other. Countless sexual orientations can be argued to be "harmless", but they aren't recognized. I am not saying that they will be legalized, but they should be officially recognized based on the same logic.

If it has no impact on society, then why not recognise gay marriage and allow it to happen? This might be useful to you: http://www.cracked.com...

For the same reason D&S slave contracts are not officially recognized. They are a private contract. People are free to announce their love, but the government doesn't have to acknowledge it or pay tax-money to support it.

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org...

Homosexuals and their beliefs are protected under federal law. Unfounded assumptions about equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality.

No more absurd than rewarding tax dollars to heterosexuals for exactly the same reasons, especially if they either can't or won't have children.

The state recognizes marriage because marriage in general procreates and provides the most stable and nurturing environment for children.
There is a difference between having old plumbing and having the wrong plumbing.

No, more the case that there's a consistent case of it being legalised around the world and none of the negative predictions come true and there's just net positives. Such consistent results indicates the US should get with the times.


http://thinkprogress.org...
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...

First of all, economical claims about "good" or "bad" that doesn't use GDP as a reference point are often misleading and too narrow.
Second of all, drug cartels and prostitution it can be argued to bring revenue, increase spending, and stimulate the economy. Same-sex marriage is either right or wrong regardless of economy.

If you claim there are actual negative effects of gay marriage, highlight them, otherwise your objection is moot.

I could mention that homosexuality provide significantly more medical risks and that it is linked with depression and suicide. But the only negative effect needed to highlight is that homosexual marriage is unjust and requires the use of double standards and ambiguous definitions.

Your whole logic of your side is based on hedonism and radical individualism.

It is equal. No compelling evidence has been shown to demonstrate otherwise.

So you are denying biological inequality? Refer to my previous arguments.

Why do you care more about the agencies than the children? My argument is that since we'll have more married couples, we can provide more homes to those unwanted children who are currently marooned in adoption agencies because of a high amount of rules and regulations and red tape.

Then stop beating around the bush looking and take it up directly with the adoption agencies. Setting those rules are their right.

Do you see nothing wrong with the current rules where hospitals end up not allowing gay people to visit their partners in hospital or receive medical information about their partners who they care about? How would you feel if you were denied marriage and couldn't visit or get medical information about your partner who you care about?

You can replace "gay" with "friends".
I believe what you mean is "What if you are denied tax breaks and other benefits", you are free to declare your love to someone of the same sex.
Flexibility of hospital policies is an other debate.

Or why not just take a simpler route and allow gay marriage to happen? Why the big need to segregate homosexuals? The government's obligated to recognise such contracts for the same reason it does for straight people. Gay people can love each other, have kids with one another, and function in society just as well as straight couples, but for some bizarre reason current laws in certain states in the US and elsewhere don't appear to think so, even though there's no evidence to counter the notion that they are in fact equal. You're not providing any compelling evidence as to why we should deny such rights.

The government doesn't just really, really wants to affirm the love between husband and wife. It would be nice if you'd get tax breaks for loving well-enough, but it is also incredibly stupid.

You are dismissing my previous argument. As a matter of fact, you didn't even explain why they are equal.

You're gonna have to provide me some stats on that one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://app.griffith.edu.au...
http://stasisonline.wordpress.com...

There's no redefinition of marriage happening here. I'll allow the website's data which I saved on my computer to help me out here:

"The definition of "marriage" has never been static in any case, and at any given moment, different people already have different ideas of what it means. In some cultures marriages are still arranged. *Cut for space*

The atomic unit of a society is the individual.

Plus, at the time of Loving v Virginia, the definition of marriage WAS that men and women could only marry inside their own race. The pro-segregation people WERE sticking to what the legal definition of marriage was. All that gets changed is we have two humans of legal age who agree to be with one another. And we've seen nothing but positives when other US states and other countries including the UK legalise gay marriage.

It is actually more of an undefinition than a redefinition.
What you mentioned are interruptions of "marriage between a man and a woman".

Governments recognize the institution of marriage as the primary institution responsible for the creation and raising of its society's members. If the family falters, the society as a whole falters.

Anti-miscegenation laws were not inherited from the English. They were based on the concept of racial purity. It is a state creation. Same-sex marriage is based o
Noel99
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2014 4:16:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/7/2014 2:58:38 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
A very large chunk of marriages are arranged in which love is not a main reason or purpose.
Historically, marriages for love were done privately in the church. But state supported marriages rarely had love as a reason (manage inheritance, preserve family name, to seal a political or social union etc..)

Yes, and we oppose those sorts of marriages. We believe you should be able to choose who you want to be with.

I added adultery and private social events like parties in the middle. Are there a public right to them? Is tax-money spent on them?

Is there a public right to churches? Should they be tax-exempt, even though with how many of them there are, if churches were actually taxed it could bring a lot of money into the economy? Since when did the monetary cost become a deciding factor with regard to fundamental rights? I'll quote again from the defunct website:

"It's also worth noting that the government and private insurance companies are already prepared to supply benefits and coverages to presently-unmarried people, so long as they pair with anyone of the opposite sex. Nobody questions providing new coverage and benefits for these marrying people; why does cost suddenly become such an interesting issue when the marrying partners are of the same sex? "

You are ambiguous as usual, do you mean orientation or behavior?

Orientations are to do with gender. Heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual are do with gender. Paedophiles and Zoophiles are not orientations, as paedophiles can still be either homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, and likewise zoophiles in terms of their interactions with the human species. Zoophiles are paraphilia. Behaviours are what you actually act on.

it says homosexuals cannot get married, but if same-sex marriage is legalized heterosexuals can get married to the same sex. SMH.

No more stupid than the constant argument anti-SSM proponents make about how homosexuals can already get married, albeit to the opposite gender. The difference is, if same sex marriage is legalised, everyone has the right to marry another person of either the two genders.

It is a special right because it favors a cultural behavior over an other. Countless sexual orientations can be argued to be "harmless", but they aren't recognized. I am not saying that they will be legalized, but they should be officially recognized based on the same logic.

Name them. And it's a natural sexual orientation. If it's happening right now, it's natural. Everyone under the new law has the right to marry someone who is one of the two genders. You may say "SMH" when it's pointed out you could marry someone of the same gender as you (since you don't want to marry someone of the same gender), and yet you wouldn't bat an eyelid at the fact that a homosexual would give exactly the same response to the constant homophobic argument they've been subject to about how they have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, even though they aren't inclined towards the opposite gender.

For the same reason D&S slave contracts are not officially recognized. They are a private contract. People are free to announce their love, but the government doesn't have to acknowledge it or pay tax-money to support it.

What the hell is D&S? And that tax money gets made back economically. Much more than what gets spent on it. Those gay couples will still be burdened with taxes once they're married you know. And the business done for the marriage industry and divorce courts will bring in a whole lot of money for the country. And if the spending of "tax-money" is really that big an issue for you, why not just abolish "marriage" altogether? I think this is just scare-mongering and excuses on your part to deny a group of people a basic human right.

Homosexuals and their beliefs are protected under federal law. Unfounded assumptions about equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Blanket statement made without evidence.

The state recognizes marriage because marriage in general procreates and provides the most stable and nurturing environment for children.

Which gay couples have more than proven they can do with raising of kids. Check all the studies on gay parents.

There is a difference between having old plumbing and having the wrong plumbing.

Unsubstantiated. Our bodies were also "built" to invent tools and technology that would make our lives easier and allow us to do things we couldn't do before. We invented artificial insemination and IVF, allowing our bodies to make babies without ever needing to actually have sex with an opposite gender, as well as condoms and birth control that allows us to have sex with people without any aim of creating babies, including sex between a gay couple.

Ergo, as a result of the above, our bodies were as much "built" to have sexual relations with the same gender as the opposite gender and both are equally natural. QED.

First of all, economical claims about "good" or "bad" that doesn't use GDP as a reference point are often misleading and too narrow.
Second of all, drug cartels and prostitution it can be argued to bring revenue, increase spending, and stimulate the economy. Same-sex marriage is either right or wrong regardless of economy.

False equivalence fallacy. There's actually demonstrable harm in drug cartels and prostitution. Nothing has been shown for gay marriage.

I could mention that homosexuality provide significantly more medical risks and that it is linked with depression and suicide. But the only negative effect needed to highlight is that homosexual marriage is unjust and requires the use of double standards and ambiguous definitions.

Depression and suicide is caused by anti-gay stigma promoted by people and media around them. And no evidence shown for double standards or being unjust. And the definitions have been pretty specific, and considering that the slippery slope has never happened in any of the places where gay marriage is legal, this is just more unfounded scaremongering on your part.
Noel99
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2014 4:37:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So you are denying biological inequality? Refer to my previous arguments.

Yep.

Then stop beating around the bush looking and take it up directly with the adoption agencies. Setting those rules are their right.

Indeed it is. I'm simply pointing out the benefit of having more married couples and thus more stable homes that adoption agencies can accept as environments for children, which will come as a result of full federal legalisation of gay marriage.

You can replace "gay" with "friends".

I refer you to the "31 arguments" link I presented before, and how tiresome that comparing gay people to just "friends" argument is.

Flexibility of hospital policies is an other debate.

Uh nope, it's entirely relevant to this. Stop evading the question.

The government doesn't just really, really wants to affirm the love between husband and wife. It would be nice if you'd get tax breaks for loving well-enough, but it is also incredibly stupid.

And yet plenty straight couples love another, get married, and don't have children. Sure seems the government affirming love-based marriages with no procreative intent.

You are dismissing my previous argument. As a matter of fact, you didn't even explain why they are equal.

Did, plenty times.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://app.griffith.edu.au...
http://stasisonline.wordpress.com...

The key point here is the sheer amount of discriminative stigma gay people receive. We're not pretending the legalisation of marriage and raising of kids for gay people will entirely solve the problem, but it will go some way to doing so. We also need proper, fact-based education about what homosexuality and bisexuality and transgenderism actually are as well as promoting tolerance and diversity.

It is actually more of an undefinition than a redefinition.

As is the gay marriage campaign to turn "One consenting legally adult non-related human male and one consenting adult non-related human female" to "Two consenting legally adult non-related humans".

What you mentioned are interruptions of "marriage between a man and a woman".

Irrelevant. It was still seen as defying the natural order to marry outside your race, not to mention all the other arguments I highlighted in the graph that showed exactly how similar the arguments of the racists and the homophobes are.

Governments recognize the institution of marriage as the primary institution responsible for the creation and raising of its society's members. If the family falters, the society as a whole falters.

You're ignoring the technology issue. We can create children and put them with gay couples, and stats show they fare no worse than children with straight couples, and often times even better. This "traditional" family you appeal to is an outdated concept, and one that assumes that traditional gender roles are still valid, even though they clearly aren't as evidenced by men taking up traits and careers commonly associated with women and vice versa.

Anti-miscegenation laws were not inherited from the English. They were based on the concept of racial purity. It is a state creation. Same-sex marriage is based o

What you're not justifying here is why to keep homosexuals segregated, beyond bogus appeals to taxes that don't hold up since the marriage and divorce industries as well as the gay couples very own taxes make back whatever the government spends on it, plus your failure to show why merely spending money on trying to establish a human right means it shouldn't be allowed.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2014 5:20:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/6/2014 4:44:52 AM, Noel99 wrote:
At 6/5/2014 4:03:41 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Skin color is benign, but sexual behavior is not. The only way to identify a homosexual is via. the person's own behavior or association. Civil rights are based on beings, while

Your argument cut off here, but you're wrong, as you're assuming traditional gender roles, namely that men must act "manly" and women act "feminine" (in other words that they conform to strict gender traits). But focusing on just the male gender, not all "manly" men are straight, and not all men who do things that fit in feminine stereotypes are gay. If one sees a man without a woman or another man by his side in a bar, regardless of whether he fits the "manly" or "feminine" stereotypes, it is still impossible to tell (without asking) whether that man is heterosexual or homosexual, thus exactly the same logic about "behaviour" and "association" have to apply to heterosexuals. Plus, there's still no compelling reason to discriminate and deny equal rights, regardless of whether your stance holds true.

Sorry, must be the character limit detection thingy.

The person is a human being, thus objectively and biologically heterosexual. That is my point, orientation is subjective. The person's behavior or association by means of stereotype or asking is the only way.
Orientation is weightless and meaningless to others unless it is translated into behavior. Thus, what we care about is what is objective, which is biological difference, and what affects self and/or others, which is behavior.

Crap, I forgot to add the link: http://rationalist.org.uk... there we go.

Found the article to be amusing. The arguments were either silly or poorly presented. The rebuttals were generally weak. You are free to pick the most convincing arguments in your opinion.

For the same reason heterosexual marriage is legalised. It's a demonstrable right.

Are you claiming that heterosexual marriage is equal to homosexual marriage? I assume that right is related to that assumption. Well, that is why you are here; demonstrate it.

Two of those involve actually possible consent. The third does not.

That doesn't change the fact that you just described a non-sessile human. Thus, your definition is meaningless. I request it to be dropped.

No, my definition makes it perfectly clear exactly what homosexual marriage entails: that two consenting (at or above the legal age) non-related human beings of the same gender. It highlights the fact that the slippery slope has never come to fruition in any of the places where gay marriage is legal.

The definitions we were discussing are homosexuality and heterosexuality. The point I disputed in your definition of homosexuality is: "romance, sexual attraction and/or sexual behaviour ". Are those interchangeable?

How does your argument demonstrate homosexuality to be not equal or inferior? An appeal to what our organs were supposedly biologically "designed" for doesn't mean anything, because my argument counters yours by pointing out that our bodies weren't designed for all the things we have in today's society that we use to bypass what they were supposedly designed for, and yet we're not saying that our "biologically natural" purposes in our bodies are somehow superior to what also exists that is supposedly "unnatural".

Because homosexuality as an orientation is biologically and morally equivalent to every single sexual orientation imaginable. Yes, that includes pedophilia, bestiality, and whatever. Thus, mentioning orientation in any sort of comparision is meaningless.

To distinguish between them, we need to judge the behavior. Homosexuality have no direct social impact, heterosexuality is needed for society.

Homosexual sex is a choice. Nobody lacks the power to refrain from having homosexual sex.
People don't magically go to dates and magically marry. People don't magically go to the bathroom or type on the internet. We consciously choose where to hang, what to look for. In a nutshell, we choose the life we want to live, or leave for that matter.

It doesn't need to just apply to babies. As you get older and your brain becomes more developed, there's still absolutely no guarantee, depending on where you live in the world, and who you're surrounded by, *cut for space*

I've presented evidence to show it's not socially useless and that there are benefits, and governments letting gay people get married isn't affirming a behaviour. *cut for space*

If that is the case then I must have missed it. Point me to where you explained the benefits exclusively given to society when engaging in homosexual behavior and relationships.

You don't choose the color of your skin, but you choose what to do with your genitals.

And what is wrong with acting on a sexual choice involving consent and not being inter-related?

Nothing inherently wrong as nobody cares about what you do in privacy with consent. However, there is nothing right either as we do not care about what you do in privacy.
Being recognized socially is not private, however, which makes criticism legitimate.

Is that when you realised, and when you decided to be that way? Also, a paedophile's "partner" wouldn't be able to give you the same answer, because they wouldn't be able to consent. That's the difference.

Nobody can know for sure. And as I mentioned before, tendencies are meaningless unless they are translated into a behavior.
Incorrect. Underages can provide the exact same answer granted that they went through puberty and whatnot. However, their consent isn't accepted as they are not considered mentally and socially mature enough. Unfortunately, there are children who "consented" to pedophiles.

Consent on the part of BOTH parties. Homosexuals can claim this, paedophiles cannot.

Consent to what and whom? To fantasize in their minds about children without actually doing anything physical? Do they need to sign papers to have these thoughts, desires, and fantasies?

If you are insistant on using orientation in your definition, then why are they not recongized?

So why do continuous studies show that gay conversion therapy has never worked?

Yeah, straights converting to gay is OK because they "Went out of the closet". And anybody who claims the opposite is a lying, right-wing bigot.
Does anybody remember the "B" in that oh-so-popular acronym "LGBT"? Hello! Why is it mentioned if these people are believed to not exist?

For example? And also, do you really think any gay people would clamour for the sort of fate Matthew Shepard received? http://en.wikipedia.org... . That's the kind of stuff that can happen just for being gay. *cut for space*

Please don't play the victim card (considering the LGBT movement's aggressiveness) or exploit victims, we aren't even sure the murder of Matthew is even related to his sexuality, it could simply be a drug-motivated robbery.
Unfortunately, thousands of people get murdered, robbed, assaulted, and raped. By default, all these victim's deserve equal protection from these crimes.

Here is some math:

http://www.fbi.gov...

1508 total sexual orientation hate crimes, excluding intimidation and simple assault (pushing) we have about 637 violent hate crimes.

http://avp.org...

According to a pro-gay website, there are 3930 reported domestic violence cases among homosexuals.

So statistically, 3930>1508 which means homosexuals were 260.6% likely to receive violence amongst themselves than criminal thugs in 2011.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2014 5:33:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/8/2014 5:20:33 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
1508 total sexual orientation hate crimes, excluding intimidation and simple assault (pushing) we have about 637 violent hate crimes.

http://avp.org...

According to a pro-gay website, there are 3930 reported domestic violence cases among homosexuals.

So statistically, 3930>1508 which means homosexuals were 260.6% likely to receive violence amongst themselves than criminal thug

You do realize that domestic assaults and hate crimes are not exactly the same thing, right? This is comparing apples to oranges.

Also, hate crimes are under-reported, both in general as well as through conviction rate. You have a much higher threshold to prove a crime committed was the result of the offender's hatred for someone's race/sexual orientation/etc. than for other reasons. For domestic abuse, you just have to be living together or married. So your statistics are not entirely useful here.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2014 7:53:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The economic benefits outweigh what the government spends on it: http://www.learnvest.com... Nice try though.


SSM Peak in the first year, and then contentiously decrease.

http://ei.marketwatch.com...

Your article made comparison of the first year. So the question is, is SSM logical economically, which is achieved by justifying increased taxing and decreased government spending in the long run.

http://www.marketwatch.com...

So why segregate homosexuals from that environment?

Single parents are "segregated" from that environment too.

Children whom gay couples are perfectly capable of raising, children who thus deserve a stable environment with their gay parents.

Again, applies to single parents. There are adoption benefit programs, but there is no social benefit that can ever result from two homosexuals having a relationship that a single person cannot provide.

You haven't explained what's even wrong with any government endorsement of homosexuals getting married. Plus you forget to show any sort of problem with the fact that straight couples can drunkenly get married to one another and then annul their weddings. Britney Spears even got married to Jason Alexander for a single weekend. Straight couples also get married where some particularly unsavoury individuals are involved. Marriages that by your very logic, the government endorses. Yet you display no problem with those "behaviours" being endorsed by the government. Why should straight drunken Vegas weddings be endorsed but not homosexual weddings?

If you mean "declare love" then no problem.

We work with the rule not the exception, otherwise we can throw away any rule, like crossing the red light when driving because sometimes running the red light causes no harm.
What marriage does is provide an ideal scenario for the primary source of parents and children, of course not every individual would be able to live up to that ideal, but the ideal remain effective nonetheless.
In my opinion, marriage rules are too flexible (requires waiting period).

Yes, and we oppose those sorts of marriages. We believe you should be able to choose who you want to be with.

And that is an individual right. But it shows that a government wouldn't care about private affairs like love.

Is there a public right to churches? Should they be tax-exempt, even though with how many of them there are, if churches were actually taxed it could bring a lot of money into the economy? Since when did the monetary cost become a deciding factor with regard to fundamental rights? I'll quote again from the defunct website:

"It's also worth noting that the government and private insurance companies are already prepared to supply benefits and coverages to presently-unmarried people, so long as they pair with anyone of the opposite sex. Nobody questions providing new coverage and benefits for these marrying people; why does cost suddenly become such an interesting issue when the marrying partners are of the same sex? "

Lets assume your viewpoint on the church tax exemption is absolutely correct. Well, two wrongs don't make a right.

Already answered. The act of heterosexuality can provide an important social function. The act of homosexuality cannot provide a social function.

Orientations are to do with gender. Heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual are do with gender. Paedophiles and Zoophiles are not orientations, as paedophiles can still be either homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, and likewise zoophiles in terms of their interactions with the human species. Zoophiles are paraphilia. Behaviours are what you actually act on.

And homosexuals can prefer much older (or younger) individuals, a homosexual can prefer a certain ethnicity, a homosexual can prefer a person with a certain social standing.
As I said, sexual orientations are pretty much infinite in numbers, and they can easily overlap.

The definition of orientation is the preference of a subject of an object. There are no set boundaries, however you seem to define gender sexual orientation.

But lets put all those aside. Is heterosexuality or homosexuality superior AS AN ORIENTATION (not behavior) to pedophilia or zoophilia as orientations and not behavior?
If so, what is this superiority based on?

No more stupid than the constant argument anti-SSM proponents make about how homosexuals can already get married, albeit to the opposite gender. The difference is, if same sex marriage is legalised, everyone has the right to marry another person of either the two genders.

I shaked my head due to the hypocracy and self contradiction; the equal ability and condition to marry was present in both cases. And equal ability and condition to marry exists without SSM.

Name them. And it's a natural sexual orientation. If it's happening right now, it's natural. Everyone under the new law has the right to marry someone who is one of the two genders. *cut for space*

What the hell is D&S? And that tax money gets made back economically. Much more than what gets spent on it. Those gay couples will still be burdened with taxes once they're married you know. *cut for space*

Part of that BDSM stuff, *Dominant & Submissive*. As I said
Benefits based on behavior are a privilege, not a right.

Blanket statement made without evidence.

Assault based on sexual orientation or beliefs is a federal crime.

Which gay couples have more than proven they can do with raising of kids. Check all the studies on gay parents.

And there are single parents who appeared in talk shows and proudly proclaimed the same.
No conclusive study on whether heterosexual marriage or homosexual marriage are generally different or not. However, biological parents are generally better than non-biological parents, and at least half the homosexual couples aren't biological parents.

Unsubstantiated. Our bodies were also "built" to invent tools and technology that would make our lives easier and allow us to do things we couldn't do before. *

Our topic is homosexuality. Artifical insemination and similar procreative alternatives are not exclusive to homosexuality; a single person or infertile couples can easily do it.

Equilivance would require homosexuals to have their own unique physiology or gender.

What you are doing is pretending that sexuality is a subjective state of mind rather than an objective physical reality, based on a non-sense theory that uses orientation as a criteria for judgement.

False equivalence fallacy. There's actually demonstrable harm in drug cartels and prostitution. Nothing has been shown for gay marriage.

So the homosexual behavior isn't medically dangerous to the "consenting" individuals?

75% of sylhpess cases in 2012:
http://www.cdc.gov...

More than 80% of HIV diagnosis in 2011:
www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_surveillance_MSM.pdf

It is alarming considering adult LGBT community make approximately 3.5% of the population.
But hey, they are consenting. But then again, consent exists drug use, prostitution sex, and incest.

Depression and suicide is caused by anti-gay stigma promoted by people and media around them. And no evidence shown for double standards or being unjust. And the definitions have been pretty specific, and considering that the slippery slope has never happened in any of the places where gay marriage is legal, this is just more unfounded scaremongering on your part.

So did African Americans show a high rate of suicide when they couldn't even drink from a water fountain?
Provide evidence for your claim of causation between stigma and suicide.

I'll leave your claims for our discussion on definitions.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2014 8:05:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/8/2014 5:33:02 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/8/2014 5:20:33 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
1508 total sexual orientation hate crimes, excluding intimidation and simple assault (pushing) we have about 637 violent hate crimes.

http://avp.org...

According to a pro-gay website, there are 3930 reported domestic violence cases among homosexuals.

So statistically, 3930>1508 which means homosexuals were 260.6% likely to receive violence amongst themselves than criminal thug

You do realize that domestic assaults and hate crimes are not exactly the same thing, right? This is comparing apples to oranges.

Also, hate crimes are under-reported, both in general as well as through conviction rate. You have a much higher threshold to prove a crime committed was the result of the offender's hatred for someone's race/sexual orientation/etc. than for other reasons. For domestic abuse, you just have to be living together or married. So your statistics are not entirely useful here.

I am simply pointing that overestimating or underestimating a problem is insulting to other problems.

What is happening in the media is an abuse of vivid or flashbulb memory, which is a primary cause for the neglectance of probability fallacy. People simply assume that there is a much higher rate of homosexual assault crime than other crimes since it have more coverage.
That is why slot machines in casinos ring all those bells and puts a light show if you won a couple of dollars.

So my point stands. That some people make choices other people hate doesn't prove anything.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2014 2:09:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm going to jump in here.

At 6/8/2014 7:53:07 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
So why segregate homosexuals from that environment?

Single parents are "segregated" from that environment too.

Probably because marriage is a contract between two people. Parent/guardian status is also a contract, and it would make more sense to put those benefits under parent/guardian status.

Children whom gay couples are perfectly capable of raising, children who thus deserve a stable environment with their gay parents.

Again, applies to single parents. There are adoption benefit programs, but there is no social benefit that can ever result from two homosexuals having a relationship that a single person cannot provide.

Except for having multiple people around to take care of the child. One to stay at home and watch the children while the other works, etc. But you can ignore little obvious things like this if that is what you wish to do.

If you mean "declare love" then no problem.

We work with the rule not the exception, otherwise we can throw away any rule, like crossing the red light when driving because sometimes running the red light causes no harm.
What marriage does is provide an ideal scenario for the primary source of parents and children, of course not every individual would be able to live up to that ideal, but the ideal remain effective nonetheless.
In my opinion, marriage rules are too flexible (requires waiting period).

You have raised a similar point in every discussion we have had and you tend to dance around any objections raised to it, so on this one I'm going to cut to the chase.

Are you saying you would rather have children wait even longer to be adopted than to risk any of them being raised by a same-sex couple, despite studies existing showing that children are better off with a gay couple than they are waiting in line at an adoption agency?

And that is an individual right. But it shows that a government wouldn't care about private affairs like love.

One point that wasn't raised here: you're creating a false dichotomy, since most marriages in the US today are a marriage recognized by the state where a ceremony is done in recognition of it. It is not done entirely for legal reasons, nor entirely for love.

Lets assume your viewpoint on the church tax exemption is absolutely correct. Well, two wrongs don't make a right.

Already answered. The act of heterosexuality can provide an important social function. The act of homosexuality cannot provide a social function.

Except for being able to raise adopted children or to have their own with new technology or having a surrogate or sperm donor. The only unique important social function of heterosexuality is actually producing children. However, human young are not by any means independent, and need to be raised, which usually requires about 18 years or more of the effort of one or more individuals. Homosexuals seem able to serve that function just as well as heterosexuals can. Producing a child only takes 9 months.

But lets put all those aside. Is heterosexuality or homosexuality superior AS AN ORIENTATION (not behavior) to pedophilia or zoophilia as orientations and not behavior?
If so, what is this superiority based on?

Consent can be given in the former two cases. And in all of these points about equality or inequality, you are ignoring the different types of inequality -- you seem to assume that one MUST be superior. Why is that?

No more stupid than the constant argument anti-SSM proponents make about how homosexuals can already get married, albeit to the opposite gender. The difference is, if same sex marriage is legalised, everyone has the right to marry another person of either the two genders.

I shaked my head due to the hypocracy and self contradiction; the equal ability and condition to marry was present in both cases. And equal ability and condition to marry exists without SSM.

That raises an interesting question for experiment -- why don't you try having a homosexual man and homosexual woman get married and adopt a child, and have two homosexual men or two homosexual women get married and adopt a child, and see which child turns out better?

Blanket statement made without evidence.

Assault based on sexual orientation or beliefs is a federal crime.

And in several states you can be fired for being gay, even when it has no bearing on your ability to do your job.

Which gay couples have more than proven they can do with raising of kids. Check all the studies on gay parents.

And there are single parents who appeared in talk shows and proudly proclaimed the same.
No conclusive study on whether heterosexual marriage or homosexual marriage are generally different or not. However, biological parents are generally better than non-biological parents, and at least half the homosexual couples aren't biological parents.

And here's your traditional exclusion: biological parents are the best, single parents can raise children too, same-sex parents I'm going to ignore because it would be inconvenient to acknowledge that a married same-sex couple can raise children better than a single parent.

Unsubstantiated. Our bodies were also "built" to invent tools and technology that would make our lives easier and allow us to do things we couldn't do before. *

Our topic is homosexuality. Artifical insemination and similar procreative alternatives are not exclusive to homosexuality; a single person or infertile couples can easily do it.

Equilivance would require homosexuals to have their own unique physiology or gender.

What you are doing is pretending that sexuality is a subjective state of mind rather than an objective physical reality, based on a non-sense theory that uses orientation as a criteria for judgement.

And I'm sure that you've devoted so many years of your life to studying psychology, haven't you?

False equivalence fallacy. There's actually demonstrable harm in drug cartels and prostitution. Nothing has been shown for gay marriage.

So the homosexual behavior isn't medically dangerous to the "consenting" individuals?

75% of sylhpess cases in 2012:
http://www.cdc.gov...

More than 80% of HIV diagnosis in 2011:
www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_surveillance_MSM.pdf

It is alarming considering adult LGBT community make approximately 3.5% of the population.
But hey, they are consenting. But then again, consent exists drug use, prostitution sex, and incest.

And once again, we find it inconvenient to admit that a formal institution of monogamy would reduce the spread of STDs, so let's conveniently ignore that!

Depression and suicide is caused by anti-gay stigma promoted by people and media around them. And no evidence shown for double standards or being unjust. And the definitions have been pretty specific, and considering that the slippery slope has never happened in any of the places where gay marriage is legal, this is just more unfounded scaremongering on your part.

So did African Americans show a high rate of suicide when they couldn't even drink from a water fountain?
Provide evidence for your claim of causation between stigma and suicide.

I'll leave your claims for our discussion on definitions.

African Americans never had to worry about their parents disowning them, you know. They aren't exactly the best groups for comparison. Usually, people always have their parents for support. When people don't have even that, they are more prone to give up.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
ThoughtsandThoughts
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2014 5:56:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So ultimately, it seems with gay marriage and gay raising of kids it really doesn't seem to cause any of the negatives that fundamentals and evangelicals think will happen, and all we get are net positives.

Thoughts?

I read an interesting article a while back... "Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."" [1]

Also, from the same article, here's an interesting thought from a New York University sociologist named Judith Stacey: "Two heterosexual parents of the same educational background, class, race and religion are more like each other in the way they parent than one is like all other women and one is like all other men."

As far as homosexual couples influencing their children to be gay goes - I read a journal abstract once that said most children of gay couples turned out straight. Let me see if I can find it again...

Meh, couldn't find it. But I found a similar research study. It said that, "To date, however, there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances. " [2]

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Noel99
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 2:56:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Drhead has already responded to certain Dragonfang points better than I can. So I'll tackle what Drhead didn't.

At 6/8/2014 5:20:33 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
The person is a human being, thus objectively and biologically heterosexual. That is my point, orientation is subjective. The person's behavior or association by means of stereotype or asking is the only way.

You can show that our bodies were built to procreate, sure. But remember the earlier point I also made about how our bodies were built to invent tools and technology as well. And that the function of such tools and technology would allow us to do things we couldn't do before, including assisting us in various ways related to procreation. Thus, if both procreation and inventing things are objectively and biologically natural, then the fact our human bodies invented technologies related to procreation means that it is not necessary to strictly only be heterosexual to create kids, thus the existence IVF and Artificial Insemination to allow gay couples to raise children is completely natural, thus homosexuality is natural and equal to heterosexuality. QED. And if orientation is subjective, the exact same standard you apply to homosexuality and bisexuality has to apply to heterosexuality.

Orientation is weightless and meaningless to others unless it is translated into behavior. Thus, what we care about is what is objective, which is biological difference, and what affects self and/or others, which is behavior.

Do you believe that being a man automatically means you have all the "manly" traits and that being a woman automatically means you have all the "feminine" traits,

Found the article to be amusing. The arguments were either silly or poorly presented. The rebuttals were generally weak. You are free to pick the most convincing arguments in your opinion.

Well the arguments against SSM are silly. A little bit of reduction ad absurdum in response to those arguments is more than justified. And numbers 1 through 15 are particularly persuasive.

Are you claiming that heterosexual marriage is equal to homosexual marriage? I assume that right is related to that assumption. Well, that is why you are here; demonstrate it.

Two of those involve actually possible consent. The third does not.

That doesn't change the fact that you just described a non-sessile human. Thus, your definition is meaningless. I request it to be dropped.

Okay, you lost me.

The definitions we were discussing are homosexuality and heterosexuality. The point I disputed in your definition of homosexuality is: "romance, sexual attraction and/or sexual behaviour ". Are those interchangeable?

Romance: Just like heterosexuals, just because homosexuals sleep with someone doesn't mean they want to spend the rest of their lives with said someone.

Sexual Attraction: While it's rare, you could in theory be homosexual, but much like heterosexuals, homosexuals could choose to be completely celibate and not show any desire to have sex with anyone.

Sexual Behaviour: Do I really need to mention all those gay people "stuck in the closet"?

Because homosexuality as an orientation is biologically and morally equivalent to every single sexual orientation imaginable. Yes, that includes pedophilia, bestiality, and whatever. Thus, mentioning orientation in any sort of comparision is meaningless.

To distinguish between them, we need to judge the behavior. Homosexuality have no direct social impact, heterosexuality is needed for society.

Not anymore it isn't. All you need are sperm donors and willing surrogates. If you're at all familiar with artificial insemination, this means that actually having physical sexual intercourse between males and females isn't a requirement at all. All you need is the sperm and the egg.

Homosexual sex is a choice. Nobody lacks the power to refrain from having homosexual sex.

Neither does anyone lack the power from refraining from heterosexual sex. Apply your standards equally.

People don't magically go to dates and magically marry. People don't magically go to the bathroom or type on the internet. We consciously choose where to hang, what to look for. In a nutshell, we choose the life we want to live, or leave for that matter.

What does this have to do with anything?

If that is the case then I must have missed it. Point me to where you explained the benefits exclusively given to society when engaging in homosexual behavior and relationships.

The Australian Marriage Equality link, which you dismissed with a couple sentences about homosexuals having protection under federal law, and then dismissing the rest as "unfounded assumptions", without providing evidence of your own.

You don't choose the color of your skin, but you choose what to do with your genitals.

But you don't choose what gender you're attracted to. Otherwise gay conversion therapy would work.

Nothing inherently wrong as nobody cares about what you do in privacy with consent. However, there is nothing right either as we do not care about what you do in privacy.
Being recognized socially is not private, however, which makes criticism legitimate.

Criticism is legitimate, but the arguments presented to criticise homosexuality certainly are not legitimate.

Incorrect. Underages can provide the exact same answer granted that they went through puberty and whatnot. However, their consent isn't accepted as they are not considered mentally and socially mature enough. Unfortunately, there are children who "consented" to pedophiles.

Which is exactly the point I was making. Legal consent is impossible.

Consent to what and whom? To fantasize in their minds about children without actually doing anything physical? Do they need to sign papers to have these thoughts, desires, and fantasies?

Legal consenting to being in relationships, having sex with one another, and getting married. Both parties in an adult homosexual relationship are capable of giving legal consent. A "paedophile" consisting of the adult paedophile and his/her underage victim cannot say the same thing.

If you are insistant on using orientation in your definition, then why are they not recongized?

As I say, a paedophile can still be hetero/homo/bisexual. It's not an orientation, it's a fetish of the mind that they then choose to act on.

Yeah, straights converting to gay is OK because they "Went out of the closet". And anybody who claims the opposite is a lying, right-wing bigot.
Does anybody remember the "B" in that oh-so-popular acronym "LGBT"? Hello! Why is it mentioned if these people are believed to not exist?

Evidence that they ever "converted" to homosexuality, and weren't gay to begin with and hiding it because of fear of repercussions for being gay. As for bisexuality, even we acknowledge there's an issue there, but it's on the individuals. If it was truly possible to convert someone who truly has an orientation they say they have, then conversion therapy should work, period.
Noel99
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 3:41:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/8/2014 7:53:07 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
SSM Peak in the first year, and then contentiously decrease.

http://ei.marketwatch.com...

Your article made comparison of the first year. So the question is, is SSM logical economically, which is achieved by justifying increased taxing and decreased government spending in the long run.

http://www.marketwatch.com...

And homosexuals can prefer much older (or younger) individuals, a homosexual can prefer a certain ethnicity, a homosexual can prefer a person with a certain social standing.

But in all of these you're still talking about homosexuals wanting to be with someone of the same gender. These "attractions", people who they actually fancy, all fit under the umbrella of homosexuality.

As I said, sexual orientations are pretty much infinite in numbers, and they can easily overlap.

No, because in these extra "orientations" you've invented, it's still either being orientated to someone of the same gender, the opposite gender, or both. Orientations are do with gender, and start with the basics. If you're a man, are you overall inclined to be with a woman, another man, or is your inclination equal to both genders? Vice versa to women. Those "extras" you mention then come down purely to what individuals you fancy, who you're attracted to..

The definition of orientation is the preference of a subject of an object. There are no set boundaries, however you seem to define gender sexual orientation.

I define sexual orientation as the innate inclination to be with one or both of the genders.

No more stupid than the constant argument anti-SSM proponents make about how homosexuals can already get married, albeit to the opposite gender. The difference is, if same sex marriage is legalised, everyone has the right to marry another person of either the two genders.

Part of that BDSM stuff, *Dominant & Submissive*. As I said
Benefits based on behavior are a privilege, not a right.

But you haven't demonstrated how the orientation, which is tied to the "behaviour" can be switched round to what you consider the more "desirable" orientation. And that's because actual scientific studies have shown that conversion therapy is hokum and never works. The benefits are based on the orientation, and that makes them a right.

Plus, having read your profile, I read that you are a Muslim. If that is truly the case, then you have to apply exactly the same standard to yourself. Certainly, no-one is born a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Jew, or any other religious belief, and unlike with sexual orientations, there are countless examples of Muslims alone de-converting and becoming atheists. So being a Muslim is based on behaviour. And there are several demonstrable negative effects of being a Muslim. Thus, by your logic, Muslims entering into marriages with one another should not have the right of benefits from the government because the benefits would be endorsing a set of behaviours. QED.

And there are single parents who appeared in talk shows and proudly proclaimed the same.

But that's not a scientific claim, and it's not supported in the evidence.

No conclusive study on whether heterosexual marriage or homosexual marriage are generally different or not. However, biological parents are generally better than non-biological parents, and at least half the homosexual couples aren't biological parents.

This is hogwash. All of the reliable scientific studies have shown that homosexual parents, (regardless of whether one of the parties is the biological parent, or whether they are both adoptive parents) statistically are no worse than heterosexual parents in terms of raising the children and how the child's welfare ends up shaping up. Several studies even suggest that biological/adoptive homosexual parents and adoptive heterosexual parents tend to be better than biological heterosexual parents due to the consistent factor that they actually plan to raise the child that comes into their home, and don't get accidentally pregnant.

Sexual organs are irrelevant to actually raising children. And considering the sheer amount of individuals within biological parents who are abusers of children, "fathers" who raped the biological mothers who in turn decided to keep the children, and generally those whose homes aren't sanitary or who have criminal records, it certainly cannot be said that being the biological parent has ANY bearing on the suitability of actually being the parents who raise the child.

So the homosexual behavior isn't medically dangerous to the "consenting" individuals?

75% of sylhpess cases in 2012:
http://www.cdc.gov...

More than 80% of HIV diagnosis in 2011:
www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_surveillance_MSM.pdf

It is alarming considering adult LGBT community make approximately 3.5% of the population.
But hey, they are consenting. But then again, consent exists drug use, prostitution sex, and incest.

Drhead's already addressed this, but a) Most gay people are not infected by STDs, and b) it's most often the case that they know how to protect themselves.

Also, we were talking about gay marriage. The act of "marriage" doesn't result in the spread of diseases. I'll let the saved web page link I have on my computer take this one:

"Furthermore, they're surely arguments FOR gay marriage! Surely if promiscuity and diseases were concerns, providing the structure of marriage would tend to discourage that behaviour. Also, it is not homosexuality that causes the spread of disease, but promiscuity of any sexual orientation. The fact of a person being homosexual does not in itself cause anyone to contract any disease or disorder.

Promiscuous heterosexuals are just as prone to contracting sexually-transmitted diseases; in addition, they're far more likely to cause unwanted pregnancies (and by implication, more abortions!)."

It's also worth mentioning as well that much of what you talked about applies to gay men Since lesbians quite clearly are subject to far less diseases than both heterosexuals and gay men, then your very logic dictates lesbians are perfectly fine.

Also, you can't mention diseases gay people get without considering how anti-gay bias contributes to this. As Warren J Blumenthal pointed out: ""Anti-gay bias causes young people to engage in sexual behavior earlier in order to prove that they are straight. Anti-gay bias contributed significantly to the spread of the AIDS epidemic. Anti-gay bias prevents the ability of schools to create effective honest sexual education programs that would save children's lives and prevent STDs."
Noel99
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2014 9:16:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Crap, forgot to address this part

At 6/8/2014 7:53:07 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
SSM Peak in the first year, and then contentiously decrease.

http://ei.marketwatch.com...

Well yeah, but this would be no different than if heterosexuals had been banned from marrying in the entire history of the US and then suddenly their right to marry got legalised. Of course you'd see a spike in the first year and then a decrease. But what we do see in the stats is that there's a consistent enough rate of gay marriages to keep them legal.

Your article made comparison of the first year. So the question is, is SSM logical economically, which is achieved by justifying increased taxing and decreased government spending in the long run.

http://www.marketwatch.com...

It's not an issue of economics. It's an issue of fundamental rights. And again, if we're going to deny rights based on economics, then the tax burdens placed on nations (among them the US and the UK) by religious buildings like Churches, Mosques, Synagogues etc being exempt from taxation means not only should Christian/Muslim/Jewish marriages not be recognised by the government at all, but also any marriages even performed in those buildings shouldn't be considered legal either. You can't have it both ways.

Also, a commenter on that website puts it beautifully when they point out that if rights have to be justified by how they affect the economy, then gun rights, certain types of free speech, unusual searches and seizures, and government-sanctioned torture should also fail said test, and yet I don't see you objecting to them.