A serious request for information regarding gay relationships of any sort

Volos · Dec 2, 2004

informedforGod said:
Rightfully so due to a lack of evidence for, and overwhelming evidence against the idea that interacial marriage was in anyway harmful. Appeal to history/tradition is not a logical fallacy but a standard of reason asserting the burden of proof. (not to mention that I was speaking directly for historical reason for marriage, and cause for the idea, not restrictions i.e. interacial, homosexual)

So you accept the lack of evidence that interracial marriage is harmful to mean that interracial marriage is harmful but at the same time deny that the lack of evidence that same sex marriage is harmful as meaningful.

An appeal to history/tradition is a logical fallacy (look it up). Simply because something is traditional does not make it good or right as noted with my examples of womens suffrage, civil rights, the abolition of slavery and many others.

Interesting.
http://www.perkel.com/politics/issues/samesex.htm
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0063.html
But lets get to the root of the problem, is homosexuality itself harmful?!
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm
http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/regenera/4.htm
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

I will tackle these sites individually.

Speaking of comparisons . . . lets look at polygamy. Any health risks: none other than normal heterosexual marriage. Any negative social implications: no, presumably it would acutally strengthen lasting hetro marriages (due to the emotional stability of wives being able to relate to each other as a family unit, sisterhood, not lesbianism)

Just as same sex marriage has no different health risks. So what is your point?

We are not speaking of polygamy which is a completely different topic but rather the lack of evidence supporting the oft cited claim that same sex marriage is somehow harmful.

now on to the articles you linked us to...

Volos · Dec 2, 2004

informedforGod said:
http://www.perkel.com/politics/issues/samesex.htm

I am not sure what your point was in linking us all to this personal opinion essay.

In fact I ma not even certain what the author intended by writing it consider this line form his introduction:

form the link provided by informedforGod

My conclusions in this article represent my opinion and are not to be considered to be any kind of strong statement of position.

not the best thing to put out there if you are trying to make some sort of claim or point.

The author goes on to try to find some support for support to defend denying legal recognition of same sex marriage.

form the link provided by informedforGod

With the exceptions of new technology, humans still reproduce from the mating of a male and a female. This is where we all come from. Our biological parents are not two men or two women, or three people for that matter. We still recognize that our biological parents are usually the ones who raise the children and are primarily responsible for their upbringing. Thus there is a basis in reality to distinguish heterosexual families with children as being directly part of the process of reproduction and the continuing the human species. The reproductive process and biological parents and families do create a logical distinction that is not an arbitrary line. If this line could be compared to the lines that separate states on a map, this line would be like a river in that there is a natural separation.

This argument is based on defining harm passively stating that since as a general homosexuality does not lead to the good act of having children so therefore it is bad. But by this standard Christian religious orders that embrace celibacy are also bad because the people taking said vow of celibacy do not reproduce. Then there comes the sticky question of how does one decline same sex couples bad because they cannot reproduce while at the same time avoiding labeling infertile opposite sex couples also as bad no surprisingly the author avoids both of these issues.

Failing in this area the author tries the its always been this way argument

form the link provided by informedforGod

The definition of marriage has a long tradition of being between one man and one woman and this has been supported across virtually all cultures and has an accepted definition. This is not a concept that has had a variety of meanings and is not undefined and ambiguous.

prior to this paragraph the author made a number of unsupported and unsupportable claims about marriage in pre-history. The truth is that prior to written records we have no information about the marriage customs or beliefs of any culture.

Ultimately the author falls into the same logical fallacy that informedforGod has, relying on the authority of history/tradition to prop up a claim. To make this argument work one has to show that marriage has always been exclusive to heterosexual couples .

This argument fails on several points:

Even in Christian tradition marriage has not always been exclusive to one man and one woman. The Christian bible lists no less than eight forms of marriage only one of which is exclusive to one man and one woman.

The second problem is that if examples of same sex marriages exist (and it doesnt take much effort to find hundreds of cultures who recognized and even celebrated same sex marriage) then the argument falls apart because it can be turned back on the one posing it by noting that historically/traditionally same sex marriage was recognized and why should we now accept legal restrictions preventing it.

Third, and most significant, even if it were true that marriage has been exclusive to heterosexual couples that is no reason to support its continued exclusion. If followed to the extreme this line of argument would have prevented womans suffrage (we never allowed women to vote in the past) prevented emancipation (slavery has always existed) and many other similar atrocities.

And after much verbal wandering the author goes on to shoot himself in the foot

form the link provided by informedforGod

One of the differences between heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages is that heterosexuals can produce new children that are born of the marriage. And, as we all know, marriage isn't required to produce children. homosexuals do often adopt children and adopted children are the same, more or less, as biological children in the eyes of the State.

.

.

. However, as to commitment in the eyes of the state and with regard to property and rights, a marriage with children should be looked at by the courts differently than one without children. When people create children together, they are legally responsible to that child and to each other as partners in raising that child and should be held to a different legal standard, with regard to mutual property and income, than families with no children, or grown children involved.

the author contradicts himself in the space of a few lines. He recognizes that children and/or the ability to reproduce is not a requirement or a prerequisite for opposite sex marriage but then goes on to arbitrarily insist (in essence) that it should be for same sex marriage.

and the real motive comes out

form the link provided by informedforGod

Having said all this, my personal belief is that the title of marriage, and the word marriage, refers to the union of one man and one woman and that the word properly belongs to the heterosexual community. I base this on the biological fact of sexual reproduction and thousands of years of tradition and the biological family as the basis for my opinion. I also include non-reproducing heterosexuals as being "grandfathered" into this group through tradition.

so just why should non-reproducing heterosexuals be grandfather in to being allowed to have their marriages legally recognized? There is no reason beyond the authors desire to justify discrimination.

form the link provided by informedforGod

If we open up the definition of marriage to include same sex marriage then why limit it to two people? Why not three, four, or five people. Why not let people marry thier pets? After all, you cat is much more likely to make a life long commitment to you than a human will and can be trusted to be more loyal and respectful of the relationship. Since I have explained a system of allowing the same rights, I feel that the trem marriage belongs to the heterosexual community and is defined to recognize our biological roots.

Wellif you cant come up with a real argument why not try the slippery slope? True no one takes it seriously and this line of thinking has the same validity as claiming that if the Untied Sates accepts legalized discrimination against homosexual what next? Racial minorities will loose civil rights s well as women and religious minorities.

on to the next article.

informedforGod · Dec 2, 2004

Okay, here's some other stuff.

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/009/18.51.html

(BTW I don't honestly know how I feel about all this, I'm just trying to weed through all the arguments.)

Volos · Dec 2, 2004

informedforGod said:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0063.html

form the link provided by informedforGod

my arguments against same-sex marriage are secularly based and, to the extent that they involve morals and values, these are grounded in ethics not religion.

sadly the author failed.

form the link provided by informedforGod

I oppose discrimination on basis of sexual orientation, whether against homosexuals or heterosexuals.

yet the author is advocating just that.

form the link provided by informedforGod

I believe that civil partnerships open to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples should be legally recognized and that the partners, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, are entitled to the same benefits and protection of the law.

calling a can of latex pain a sandwich doe not make it a sandwich. If something is identical to a marriage then it is a marriage not something else.

form the link provided by informedforGod

Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life.

none of which is or is necessarily exclusive to opposite sex couples

form the link provided by informedforGod

By institutionalizing the relationship that has the inherent capacity to transmit life that between a man and a woman marriage symbolizes and engenders respect for the transmission of human life. (What such respect now requires has become an unprecedented issue in light of recent advances in reprogenetic technology. I discuss that shortly.)

To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy its capacity to function in the ways outlined above, because it could no longer represent the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding.

the fact that the author failed completely to explain just how legal recognition of same sex marriage would destroy its capacity to function should be noted.

Once again the author is left with the problem of how to promote discrimination against same sex couples because they cannot biologically reproduce while at the same time trying to avoid promoting discrimination against infertile opposite sex couples. Any reasoning here results in the author being arbitrary.

form the link provided by informedforGod

If the reason for denying same-sex marriage is that we have no respect for homosexuals and their relationships, or want to give the message that homosexuality is wrong, then, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not ethically acceptable from the perspective of respect for homosexuals and their relationships. It is also discrimination.

Yet supporting discrimination is entirely what this article is about.

form the link provided by informedforGod

On the other hand, if the reason is to keep the very nature, essence and substance of marriage intact, and that essence is to protect the inherently procreative relationship, then excluding same-sex couples from marriage is ethically acceptable from the perspective of respect for them and their relationships. And such a refusal is not discrimination.

in words of one syllableif we can come up with any reason, no matter who outrageous then we can pretend that what we are doing is somehow not discriminations.

form the link provided by informedforGod

marriage institutionalizes and symbolizes for society the inherently procreative relationship. It cannot do that if it is changed to include same-sex couples.

and why not?

The author does not say.

The only reason seems to be because that is what the author wishes to believe this (even though I doubt she honestly does) and wishes her audience believe this without bothering to actually examine the claim.

form the link provided by informedforGod

the joint reproductive incapacity of a same-sex couple must not be addressed through reproductive technologies. I believe that a child has a right not to be created from the genetic patrimony of two men or two women, or by cloning, or from multiple genetic parents.

why not?

The author does not say.

The only reason seems to be because that is what the author having made unsupported claims about marriage and her reasoning for why what she is advocating is somehow not discrimination she must follow through and hope no one actually bothers to think about what she is saying.

form the link provided by informedforGod

bringing children into a same-sex relationship should not be seen as within the norm, but rather, as an exception to it. Although it is considered a radical view by some people, and often seen as politically incorrect, I believe that a child needs a mother and a father and, if possible and unless there are good reasons to the contrary, preferably its own biological mother and father as its raising parents.

why?

The author does not say.

The scientific/sociological evidence does not support her ideas.

The only reason seems to be because that is what the author wishes to believe this (even though I doubt she honestly does) and wishes her audience believe this without bothering to actually examine the claim or worse actually bothering to look into the subject for themselves.

form the link provided by informedforGod

Recognizing same-sex marriage would make bringing children into a same-sex relationship part of the norm, rather than the exception.

I agree. If ones friends had friends whose parents were of the same gender it would be much more difficult to teach children to hate people like their friends parents,

form the link provided by informedforGod

We should recognize same-sex relationships and legally protect them and any children involved, but not by recognizing the same-sex couples' relationship as marriage.

and why not?

The author (surprisingly enough) fails to say.

In the end the author does nothing but try desperately to find some justification for hoer own personal prejudices.

Volos · Dec 2, 2004

informedforGod said:
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

did you even bother to read this article?

Volos · Dec 2, 2004

informedforGod said:
http://home.messiah.edu/~chase/h/articles/regenera/4.htm

form the link provided by informedforGod

The question then is: Is homosexuality harmful? By three basic criteria by which it is clearly appropriate to judge any form of behavior: emotional, psychological and physical, there is powerful evidence to indicate that it is not good to be gay. Let's look at this as objectively as possible:

EMOTIONALLY -- This is the most difficult to measure objectively, but we can look at certain facts which are available:

1. Homosexuals can't have children. Few would dispute that children provide an opportunity to give and receive love in a way that meets a basic human need.

again:

This argument is based on defining harm passively stating that since as a general homosexuality does not lead to the good act of having children so therefore it is bad. But by this standard Christian religious orders that embrace celibacy are also bad because the people taking said vow of celibacy do not reproduce. Then there comes the sticky question of how does one decline same sex couples bad because they cannot reproduce while at the same time avoiding labeling infertile opposite sex couples also as bad no surprisingly the author avoids both of these issues.

form the link provided by informedforGod

2. Homosexual relationships lack complementarity. Feminists notwithstanding, there are differences in male and female that go beyond the reproductive capacities -- brain differences, body structure differences, etc. These tend to complement each other in mankind as they do in other creatures -- creating a complementarity that is good for the individuals, for children and for society.

again this view is not supported by research

In 2001 two researchers, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, compiled the data form these varrioaus studies and then returned to the families that were origianly studied for follow up interviews.

(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz The American Sociological Revie, April 2001.

They found that the various studies found no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren) parents or their children.

And:

studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian mothers and children
of heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem, and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment. The roughly equivalent level of psychological well-being between the two groups holds true in studies that test children directly, rely on parents reports, and solicit evaluations from teachers. The few significant differences found actually tend to favor children with lesbian mothers Given some credible evidence that children with gay and lesbian parents, especially adolescent children, face homophobic teasing and ridicule that many find difficult to manage (Tasker and Golombok 1997; also see Bozett 1989:148; Mitchell 1998), the children in these studies seem to exhibit impressive psychological strength.

form the link provided by informedforGod

3. Homosexual relationships, on average are much shorter lived than heterosexual relationships. Amajor studyby the Kinsey Institute revealed that 78% of male homo- sexual "affairs" (relationships entered into with an intent of commitment) lasted less than three years. Only 12% lasted five years or longer.l Certainly, this shows a pattern of broken relationships that must be painful for many.

truthfully I was shocked that the author used this particular study. Most advocates of discrimination trying to grasp at straws to defend themselves cite a study on single gay men and aids done in the Netherlands in the mid 80s and try to claim that it is representative of same sex marriages.

Now here is something really interesting, the author of the article talks about the Kinsey institute but does not use a primary source, the source sited is Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978) p.314.

Aside from trying to draw current culture conclusions from something over a generation old the big issue is in the motive of why the author of this article did not use a primary source but rather a secondary one. Anyone wanting to learn how to rip apart hate documents like this one here is a key point, when secondary sources are used it is a good indication that the author of the piece did not actually want anyone to read the original piece. When confronted with such a thing I just fire up my search engine and go read the original. Often this is a difficult and frustrating chore and this serves as a prime example. The book sited is and has been out of print for years. Online searches lead to many hits form Christian sites repeating the same line time and again. Interestingly when trying to connect these statistics to Kinsey the search engine comes up empty handed. Dont fret, I will get my local library to track this book down to see just what it says, I would be surprised if Bell and Wienberg were accurately represented.

form the link provided by informedforGod

In a 1977 survey of members ofthe American Psychiatric Association, 73% of the psychiatrists responding said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. Seventy percent said they believed that the homosexuals' problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization

Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110- 111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker)

wow not just a secondary source but something even further removed form the original..

First off Growing up Straight is a book telling parents how to spot homosexual children and teach parents to deal with the threat of homosexuality. It is a sick book and it is sad that anyone would write it much less read it.

All this aside the original source is being misquoted. In reality was 73% of the psychiatrists responding said that they thought that homosexual men (seeking counseling from them) are less happy than (those who are not in counseling) others. This is sort of like saying that 98% of all people seeking counseling for depression have been sad at one point.

form the link provided by informedforGod

PSYCHOLOGICALLY -- The gay community claimed a great victory when they prevailed upon the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II -- its listing of psychological disorders. This highly controversial action seems to fly in the face of the evidence of any common sense definition of psychological well-being. Consider the following:

1. Homosexual men are six times more likely to have attempted suicide than are heterosexual men.

not true. Interestingly enough I found references to this claim while trying to hunt up the original statements of Bell and Wienberg a couple quotes ago. gay men are no more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual men. However homosexual teens are significantly more likely to do so. research of htose teens who have attempted suicide show the leading causes for the suicide attempts were rejection by parents because of their sexual orientation. Physical, emotional/sexual abuse by parent/guardian. Physical/verbal attacks by peers. Hershberger, S. L. et al. (1997) Predictors of Suicide Attempts Among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, 20, 477-497.

Articles like this which encourage and defend hate are the true culprits not the sexual orientation of the teens in question.

form the link provided by informedforGod

National gay rights organizations have been making a major issue lately ofthe high level of crime perpetrated against gays. This has been put forth as a justification for inclusion of homosexuality in civil rights laws. What is not mentioned is that much ofthis crime occurs when a lonely, desperate homosexual takes a young male prostitute or other stranger to his home or apartment for an evening of sex. Although most gays know they risk meeting up with psychopaths in this way, many are still driven to do it.

I would comment on the source of this claim but not surprisingly there is none. My guess is that the author is simply desperate to justify his own hatred.

form the link provided by informedforGod

In a survey reported in the official publication of the American Public Health Association, 78% of the gay respondents reported that they had been affected by a sexually transmitted disease at least one time. Enrique T. Rueda, The Homosexual Network, (Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982), p.53

Today most everyone in the country has been affected by a sexually transmitted disease in the age of AIDS it is rare to find a person who has not nor does not know someone infected.

form the link provided by informedforGod

Several years ago it was reported that San Francisco had a VD rate that was 22 times the national average

quietly leaving out the fact that this is true for hetersexuals.

form the link provided by informedforGod

Over 70% of those who have contracted AIDS are homosexual or bi-sexual.

untrue

TO quote one of the other sites you provided:

According to a fact sheet from UNAIDS, the joint AIDS program sponsored by the United Nations and The World Bank, between 5-10 % of the total HIV infections in the world at the end of 1996 had been caused by male homosexual intercourse - which corresponds to most estimates of the proportion of homosexuals in the general population. Almost no cases of lesbian sex has resulted in HIV spreading.

[/quote]

http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/threat.htm

the UNAIDS fact sheet link was inactive you can find current copies at:

http://www.unaids.org/en/media/fact+sheets.asp

form the link provided by informedforGod

We do need to address the statement that the difficulties suffered by homosexuals are all a result of society's prejudice and unwillingness to support stable gay relationships. We can address this on several points:

1. There is no proof for this allegation.

I would laugh at this blatant lie but for the fact that so many posters on these forms continually try to pretend that this is true.

form the link provided by informedforGod

In areas where there is the greatest acceptance of homosexuality (San Francisco, West Hollywood, New York City), the detrimental effects don't decrease; they increase.

not true at all. in areas of high gay population concentrations discrimination in housing, employment, social services, business services etc are far less likely to take place.

Volos · Dec 2, 2004

informedforGod said:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

you saved the best for last

the article is propertied to have been written by a medical doctor. I find it difficult to believe that a medical doctor would be so misinformed or so dishonest.

form the link provided by informedforGod

Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.

what is the obsession with very old statistics? Could it be that current statistics dont support the outrageous claims that the authors try to make.

When ever these statistics crop up I have to question where in the world did anyone find time to have so many sexual partners? Who would have the energy?

form the link provided by informedforGod

Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs

someone claiming to be a medical doctor should know that STDs happen because of unprotected sex with an infected partner

form the link provided by informedforGod

The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.

the study in question was created by the infamous Paul Cameron founder of the National Family Institute. Long time readers of these forums should recognize this mans name. in 1884 he was expelled form the APA (and every other legitimate professional organization) for ethics violations, he falsifying research data on homosexuality, published statistics that did not exist and misrepresented(lied about) the research of other scientists. Twenty years later he hasnt changed. The study was conducted by selectively gathering obituaries from gay publications (often mimeographed publications) and then claiming that gay men have a life expectancy of 42 years. Assuming that the deceased person wasn't famous, an obituary appears in a gay community newspaper only if: (1) a loved one or friend notifies the newspaper about the death (and, in many cases, writes the obituary) and, (2) the editor decides to print the obituary.

Consequently, the majority of gay men and lesbians who die never have an obituary in a gay community publication. Here are just a few examples of who is left out of gay newspapers' obituaries: Gay men and lesbians who were not involved in the gay community, Gay men and lesbians who were in the closet about their sexual orientation,

Gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family didn't want their homosexuality to be known, Gay men and lesbians whose loved ones or family simply didn't think of sending an obituary to a gay community newspaper, Gay men and lesbians whose loved ones did not write an obituary for some other reason (e.g., they were too grief stricken), Gay men and lesbians who died without leaving anyone to write an obituary for a gay publication (e.g., those whose loved ones and relatives died before them). an accurate estimate of the life span of gay men and lesbians would have to count such people. By purposefully restricting their analysis to obituaries in gay newspapers, however, the Cameron group systematically excluded them from the sample.

The Cameron study is a joke and much like looking the obituaries printed in New York City in October 2001 and concluding that New Yorkers have a life expectancy of 34 years and the majority die at work.

One has to wonder why this supposed doctor would include a study so well known to be a lie.

form the link provided by informedforGod

Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years.

Xiridou, M, Steady and casual partners as sources of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam AIDS 2003, 17:1029-1038).

Dr. Xiridou's paper was a review of AIDS transmission among promiscuous gay men in Amsterdam in the early 1980s. it was NOT a study of monogamy (in fact monogamous men were excluded from the study) or the length of time a same sex relationship lasts.

http://www.eurandom.tue.nl/abstracts_seminars/cmb.htm

I could go on but like so many anti-gay articles posted on hate cites the works are riddled with lies and half truths and misdirection.

Volos · Dec 2, 2004

informedforGod said:
Okay, here's some other stuff.

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/009/18.51.html

Ugh.

Try some legitimate research sites

Leaderu: you have to wonder about any site that that advocates a therapy known to be actively harmful to people.

Familyresarchinst I already commented about the history of Paul Cameron and his well documented lies and misrepresentations of others research. Look at the research this guy is citing. Stuff form before I was born. Try actually reading these things and actually looking at the evidence presented before bothering the rest of us with hate site propaganda.

The Bellman · Dec 2, 2004

The thread seems to have gotten off-track somewhat. The OP asks for specific examples of how legalising gay marriage would affect anyone else. The usual anti-gay marriage lines have been brought out, but nobody has actually stated any way in which legalising gay marriage would harm anyone. Are there any suuch ways?

Buzz Dixon · Dec 3, 2004

Volos, I've noticed other people are willing to debate; you always deny. I've noticed other people offering alternatives; you insist on getting what you want and to Gehenna with everyone else.

I've pointed out elsewhere that Arafat was offered 93% of what he claimed he wanted and he turned it down, wanting it all. Instead he got bupkis.

There's a lesson to be learned there, compadre.

Clem is Me · Dec 3, 2004

Buzz Dixon said:
Volos, I've noticed other people are willing to debate; you always deny. I've noticed other people offering alternatives; you insist on getting what you want and to Gehenna with everyone else.

I've pointed out elsewhere that Arafat was offered 93% of what he claimed he wanted and he turned it down, wanting it all. Instead he got bupkis.

There's a lesson to be learned there, compadre.

This thread is full of lessons for all kinds of compadres.

But it's empty of the things it was started for.

The Bellman · Dec 3, 2004

Buzz Dixon said:
Volos, I've noticed other people are willing to debate; you always deny. I've noticed other people offering alternatives; you insist on getting what you want and to Gehenna with everyone else.

I've pointed out elsewhere that Arafat was offered 93% of what he claimed he wanted and he turned it down, wanting it all. Instead he got bupkis.

There's a lesson to be learned there, compadre.

And I could say the same about you. Not that I've noticed it about you, but nor have I noticed it about Volos. He is usually treated harshly and with ad hominem (as you have done) in debates of this kind for a simple reason - he has that annoying habit of continually citing documentation and studies to support his contentions. So how about rather than attacking him, you debate? Your above post is doing precisely what you criticise him for doing.

Buzz Dixon · Dec 3, 2004

The Bellman said:
And I could say the same about you. Not that I've noticed it about you, but nor have I noticed it about Volos. He is usually treated harshly and with ad hominem (as you have done) in debates of this kind for a simple reason - he has that annoying habit of continually citing documentation and studies to support his contentions. So how about rather than attacking him, you debate? Your above post is doing precisely what you criticise him for doing.

Bellman, I have provided citations again and again, in this debate and others. I don't blow smoke, and anybody willing to Google will find ample citations for everything I've posted.

Clem is Me · Dec 3, 2004

I believe this to be...innaccurate. At least according to the parameters I laid out in the OP.

The Bellman · Dec 3, 2004

Buzz Dixon said:
Bellman, I have provided citations again and again, in this debate and others. I don't blow smoke, and anybody willing to Google will find ample citations for everything I've posted.

I haven't said you do blow smoke. I have merely stated that Volos always has a great amount of support for his claims regarding homosexuality. Far from being unwilling to debate, he is the most willing and prepared person on this forum on the subject.

Buzz Dixon · Dec 3, 2004

Clem is Me said:
I believe this to be...innaccurate. At least according to the parameters I laid out in the OP.

Now, I find that...ironic.

Clem is Me · Dec 3, 2004

Buzz Dixon said:
Now, I find that...ironic.

I don't know what I find it. I do know that my origional question has not been answered adequately.

Sphere · Dec 3, 2004

stray bullet said:
Gays have a right to marry, just not members of the same sex.

Oh let me try, I can replicate that to something which might of been said in the 50's.

Blacks have a right to marry, just not not members of the white race.

Pretty neat huh?

Sola Gratia said:
There is no "discrimination in this. Any Gay man or woman has the same option to marry someone of the opposite sex that a hetrosexual has.

It is discrimination, no matter which way you attempt to justify it. You can deny that until you feel its not, doesnt change the notion that you are wrong.

Buzz Dixon · Dec 3, 2004

Halruaa said:
Oh let me try, I can replicate that to something which might of been said in the 50's.

Blacks have a right to marry, just not not members of the white race.

Pretty neat huh?

It is discrimination, no matter which way you attempt to justify it. You can deny that until you feel its not, doesnt change the notion that you are wrong.

Fallacy. Blacks breed true genetically; their ethnic characteristics were passed from one generation to the next. Gays are abberations (in the sense that they are not likely to pass their orientation on to successive generations even if they breed biologically, nor do they usually come from parents who are gay).

Hence, since blacks and whites are capable of reproducing their charactertistics, and since they are capable of blending their characteristics, there is a commonality between the two races that overrides laws and social mores.

Since gays do not reproduce their characteristics, and since a blending of a gay person and a straight person does not produce a bisexual, gays have no inherent right to marry.

It makes no difference if any particular couple chooses to have children or not. We are talking about genetic classifications; gays have never demonstrated an ability to pass their orientation along to their biolgical offspring in anything other than standard statistical deviations from the norm.

Clem is Me · Dec 3, 2004

Buzz Dixon said:
Fallacy. Blacks breed true genetically; their ethnic characteristics were passed from one generation to the next. Gays are abberations (in the sense that they are not likely to pass their orientation on to successive generations even if they breed biologically, nor do they usually come from parents who are gay).

Hence, since blacks and whites are capable of reproducing their charactertistics, and since they are capable of blending their characteristics, there is a commonality between the two races that overrides laws and social mores.

Since gays do not reproduce their characteristics, and since a blending of a gay person and a straight person does not produce a bisexual, gays have no inherent right to marry.

It makes no difference if any particular couple chooses to have children or not. We are talking about genetic classifications; gays have never demonstrated an ability to pass their orientation along to their biolgical offspring in anything other than standard statistical deviations from the norm.

A serious request for information regarding gay relationships of any sort

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Bellman

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Bellman

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Bellman

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency