A serious request for information regarding gay relationships of any sort

[Buzz Dixon]

 

[Sphere]

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.

By this logic, sterile heterosexual individuals shouldnt be allowed to have a marriage. Right? After all, they cannot reproduce their characteristics.

What you said for gays, would fit perfectly with sterile individuals. Obviously then, sterile people have no right getting married, because they cant pass on their characteristics.


Since sterile individuals do not reproduce their characteristics, and since a blending of a sterile person and a normal person does not produce a normal person, sterile individuals have no inherent right to marry.

Isnt hypocrisy fun?

 

[Clem is Me]

Sorry. The rules of the forum demand that I keep my posts civil, and I just couldn't think of a civil way to respond to your post.

 

[The Bellman]

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.

I'm trying to work out what the above has to do with anything. People have a right to marry ONLY if those two people can reproduce, and the offspring are a 'blend' of the two parents? Is that it? So infertile heterosexual couples have no right to marry? Prospective marriage partners should have to have medical tests to ensure they are capable of reproducing with each other before it is determined that they have a right to marry? Is that what you're saying?

In addition, somebody who has some genetic trait which cannot be passed down (a recessive trait, for example) cannot marry? Are you serious?

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Sorry. The rules of the forum demand that I keep my posts civil, and I just couldn't think of a civil way to respond to your post.

There's always this:

 

[Buzz Dixon]

I'm trying to work out what the above has to do with anything. People have a right to marry ONLY if those two people can reproduce, and the offspring are a 'blend' of the two parents? Is that it? So infertile heterosexual couples have no right to marry? Prospective marriage partners should have to have medical tests to ensure they are capable of reproducing with each other before it is determined that they have a right to marry? Is that what you're saying?

In addition, somebody who has some genetic trait which cannot be passed down (a recessive trait, for example) cannot marry? Are you serious?

No, you are deliberately mistating me.

Being black or white is a characteristic that is passed along through a group. Assuming no outside genetic material is introduced, it will breed true for successive generations. Mutations are genetic -- an albino, for instance, or a little person with dwarfism -- and (crucial difference) can be bred true in successive generations.

Homosexuality is not a mutation; rather it is an aberration, perhaps physical, perhaps psychological, perhaps a mixture of both. It is like a person being born with a portwine birthmark or a clubfoot; it's a random event and can not be passed on to successive generations genetically.

The core function of marriage in all societies at [Ball[/B] times has been to sustain a stable culture. Marriage does this in a variety of ways, but the default setting is always one man, one woman (note to Volos: "default" is being used in its contemporary post-computer meaning, i.e., the basic foundation of any culture, program, or institution on which all future changes are based, and to which the culture, program, or institution reverts when changes prove unworkable).

What is key to this is that marriage does not involve two individuals alone, it onvolves their families and by extension the community in which they reside. If all marriage meant was shacking up for warm fuzzies, it wouldn't exist. Rathger, it is crucial to preserve and reinforce not just familial bloodlines, but cultural ones as well.

Sterile individuals -- or couples who opt not to have children -- are aberrations in marriage, not the historical norm. Genetically they are identical to other members of their group; if they chose to have children, or if the sterile individual was cloned, their genes would be passed on to future generations.

Similarly, a tall person marrying a short one might produce a tall kid (1/4 chance), a short kid (1/4 chance), or a kid of average height (1/2 chance).

However...gays do not pass along their homsexual orientation -- even when they reproduce biologically -- any differently from the rest of the population (i.e., there's a 3% chance their offspring will be exclusively homosexual). They do no breed true, they do not produce bi-sexual offspring. They will produce offspring identical with the larger norm, not with the self-identified gay group.

Hence, in strictly genetical and biological terms, homosexuals are aberrations, not mutations; they are not a genetically valid sub-group (as, say, dwarfism, albinism, etc.).

If a culture chooses to define marriage as one man and four women (as in the Islamic world), that culture has the right to do so (and even there, one man, one woman is the default). If a culture chooses to define marriage as a woman marrying a wooden effigey (as in old China when her fiance would die before an arranged marriage), that culture has the right to do so.

And if a culture chooses to define marriage as one man, one woman exclusively, then that culture has the right to do so.

Now, gay marriage advocates have every right in the Constitution to argue the definition should be changed, to petition the government for such change, and to vote for legislators who will make such changes.

So do the people who want to keep marriage exclusive.

As I've stated many, many times before, what we are discussing here is not a matter of rights and tax breaks; that argument is one most Americans are more than willing to entertain and, if results were what mattered and not appearances, one the gay marriage advocates could and should easily agree to.

Rather, gay marriage advocates are fighting not for tolerance or acceptance, but endorsement of what they want.

It is, and has been, all about them and their desires, not what the culture as a whole feels best.

From that limited perspected -- i.e., the pursuit of self with reckless disregard for others -- advocates of gay marriage who are unwilling to compromise are behaving immorally.

 

[Volos]

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.

I believe what you have noticed is that I am unafraid to confront dishonesty and hypocrisy.



Simply because you are unable to actually identify a single concrete example of just how Clem’s marriage and /or family is harmed by the legal recognition of same sex marriage is no reason to personally attack me or anyone else.



anything less than equal rights is NOt equal. please stop trying to pretend otherwise

 

[Clem is Me]

There's always this:

But what you said was funny. That's more of a "Yes yes, buhbye" smiley.

 

[Volos]

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.

You have not provided a cingle citation in this thread.

You have not provided citations for your claims in post #5 for your claim that legal recognition of bestial marriage has been “already seriously proposed”

You have not provided citations for your claims in post #12 for your claim that “They will not be satisfied until they steal it from those to whom it rightfully belongs”

You have not provided citations for your claims in post #33 for your claim that legal recognition of same sex marriage devalues opposite sex marriage in any way

You have not provided citations for your claims in post #33 for your claim that “Nothing works as well as a stable heterosexual marriage to provide stablity and continuity to a culture.”

You have not provided citations for your claims in post #33 for your claim that crime rates, drug/alcohol abuse rates, illegitimacy and divorce rates or anything else in your little list of horrors has anything to do with “devaluing marriage”

You have not provided citations for your claims in post #33 for your claim that nations where legal recognition of same sex marriage has been accepted have “crappy” standards of morality







In related threads:

You have not provided citations for your claims about the exclusivity of marriage to heterosexuals.

You have not provided citations for your claims that gays and lesbians are not discriminated against

You have not provided citations for your claims that sexual orientation is not biological in origin

 

[Volos]

By this logic, sterile heterosexual individuals shouldnt be allowed to have a marriage. Right? After all, they cannot reproduce their characteristics.

What you said for gays, would fit perfectly with sterile individuals. Obviously then, sterile people have no right getting married, because they cant pass on their characteristics.


Since sterile individuals do not reproduce their characteristics, and since a blending of a sterile person and a normal person does not produce a normal person, sterile individuals have no inherent right to marry.

Isnt hypocrisy fun?

well said

 

[Volos]

No, you are deliberately mistating me.

No. I think the nail was hit firmly on the head.
Discrimination is discrimination no matter which minority it is directed against and no matter how those who promote discrimination try to justify it.

The core function of marriage in all societies at [Ball[/B] times has been to sustain a stable culture.

And once again you have failed to provide evidence for your claims.


[qutoe] Marriage does this in a variety of ways, but the default setting is always one man, one woman [/quote]
You have failed to show that same sex marriage does not promote cultural stability.

The original OP of this thread was the request for specific evidence/examples of how same sex marriages personally harms the poster. You failed to provide a single concrete example.


[qutoe] (note to Volos: "default" is being used in its contemporary post-computer meaning, i.e., the basic foundation of any culture, program, or institution on which all future changes are based, and to which the culture, program, or institution reverts when changes prove unworkable). [/quote]I am well aware of the definition and note you have continuously failed to support your claims about such a “default” .

What is key to this is that marriage does not involve two individuals alone, it onvolves their families and by extension the community in which they reside. If all marriage meant was shacking up for warm fuzzies, it wouldn't exist. Rathger, it is crucial to preserve and reinforce not just familial bloodlines, but cultural ones as well.

You have failed to show that same sex marriage does not involve preserve and reinforce the couples families and community they reside in


[qutoe] Sterile individuals -- or couples who opt not to have children -- are aberrations in marriage, not the historical norm. Genetically they are identical to other members of their group; if they chose to have children, or if the sterile individual was cloned, their genes would be passed on to future generations. [/qutoe]
The definition of a sterile individual is one who cannot reproduce so they would not have children

If a culture chooses to define marriage as one man and four women (as in the Islamic world),

And here you show that your above claim that “the default setting is always one man, one woman” is not the default at all but something you simply claim it to be.

And if a culture chooses to define marriage as one man, one woman exclusively, then that culture has the right to do so.

Now, gay marriage advocates have every right in the Constitution to argue the definition should be changed, to petition the government for such change, and to vote for legislators who will make such changes.

So do the people who want to keep marriage exclusive.

How fortunate that civil rights (at least in the United States) are based not on popular opinion but on the conceptions of liberty, justice and the constitution.

As I've stated many, many times before, what we are discussing here is not a matter of rights and tax breaks; that argument is one most Americans are more than willing to entertain and, if results were what mattered and not appearances, one the gay marriage advocates could and should easily agree to.

Why should any minority agree to anything less than equality?

You have claimed many times before that gays and lesbians are not discriminated against. Yet here you contradict that statement showing that you know full well that discrimination does exist.

Rather, gay marriage advocates are fighting not for tolerance or acceptance, but endorsement of what they want.

It is, and has been, all about them and their desires, not what the culture as a whole feels best.

It seems that since you have failed to defend the advocating of discrimination you have opted to vilify gays and lesbians.

 

[Clarity]

And once again you have failed to provide evidence for your claims.

If you look at volos he has not provided any evidence for supporting his viewpoint he merely states that his viewpoint is right even though he has no evidence and he seems to think that others have to provide evidence for their views and all the burden for this is on others but not on himself but if they cant he is automatically right. Is there any evidence that gay marriage doesn't harm marriage? None has been quoted. It is easy to place all the burden of proof onto someone else then deconstruct and criticise but he appears afraid to put foward any evidence of his own and argue his point but merely lets others produce arguments which he laughs at and villifies. No matter how many examples are provided you will just refuse to accept them no matter how clear as i have seen many examples.


To be blunt the reason why Chrisitians think homosexual marriage is wrong is because an all powerful all knowing being called God says so and if you want to disagree with this all powerful all knowing eternal being who created the universe then fine, but be careful what you wish for as you might get it. The fact is that if you look at the anatomy of males and females it is obvious that males were created to interact sexually with females and it is unnatural for two people of the same sex to marry and their design clearly bears testimony to this not just physically but emotionally and this is what i think is at the heart of marriage and lets stop the nonsense about reproduction and sterile couples.A marriage relationship between two men is completely different from that between a man and a woman as in case you haven't noticed there are large differences between men and woman in all areas, as god created them to be different and complimentary and you cannot thus equate a homosexual marriage with a heterosexual one as they are completely different in content. A child needs both a mother and a father not two mothers or two fathers as each of these parents provides different things for the child. I am not easily convinced by statistics as they are ususally flawed and very inaccurate and you can always find one statistic to disprove another.

Yet here you contradict that statement showing that you know full well that discrimination does exist.

There is nothing wrong with discrimination as long as their is a valid reason for its existence. In fact discrimination goes on every day it is just a question of what should we use to discriminate and what shouldn't we use to discriminate. eg should we discriminate against those who want to build nuclear bombs in their back gardens and not allow this or should we discriminate against those who want to take cocaine or should we discriminate against those who want to want to have relationships with someone of the same sex or perhaps discriminate against those who want to worship a certain god or those who are a certain skin colour. I see nothing wrong with discriminating against some things but not all things the question is should we discriminate against those who want to have a homosexual marriage or not. You are assuming that homosexuality is something that shouldn't be discriminated against when this is not necessarily the case.

 

[Nathan David]

By accepting homosexual unions as the equal of marriage, society further devalues the meaning of the term.

How does changing the meaning of a term devalue it?

Marriage is the bonding of a male and a female into a unique synthesis.

And many of us are seeking to expand the meaning of marriage to mean the bonding of two adults who love each other romantically into a unique synthesis.

Your entire argument boils down to "It's bad because it's a change."

the purpose of marriage in all societies is to provide a continuity of culture from one generation to the next.

News to me.

As cited above, marriages are about blending families together, they are not exclusively about two people getting the warm fuzzies for one another.

If I ever get married, it will be exlusively abuot two people being in love with each other, and not a bit about blending families.

Nothing works as well as a stable heterosexual marriage to provide stablity and continuity to a culture. When marriage is devalued, families split up, children are raised without fathers, and very quickly crime rates, drug/alcohol abuse rates, illegitimacy and divorce rates begin rising, while the children receive poorer educations and are more emotionally vulnerable.

Evidence for these amazing claims?

 

[Volos]

If you look at volos he has not provided any evidence for supporting his viewpoint he merely states that his viewpoint is right even though he has no evidence and he seems to think that others have to provide evidence for their views and all the burden for this is on others but not on himself but if they cant he is automatically right.

Can you provide examples of this?



If I have failed to provide support for assertion I have made I heartily apologize and if you would be so kind as to point them out I will be happy to provide the requested support.



Traditionally in debate forum those making claims are called upon to support their claims. In this debate there are those who have repeatedly claimed that somehow legal recognition is harmful, yet despite Clem_is_me’s repeated requests for a specific example of just how he, his marriage and/or his family is harmed have gone unanswered.

Is there any evidence that gay marriage doesn't harm marriage? None has been quoted.

two points:
First – There is also no evidence that invisible and intangible unicorns from the planet Pluto are not using their mental powers to control the post office employees. Does this mean anyone who does not believe the claim of the mind controlling unicorns must provide evidence showing that there are no invisible and intangible unicorns living on Pluto?

Second – I am not the one making the claims about the harm or lack of harm of legal recognition of same sex marriage. I have just repeatedly noted that those who are claiming that somehow legal recognition of same sex marriage is somehow harmful have yet to provide a concrete example of this harm.

It is easy to place all the burden of proof onto someone else then deconstruct and criticise

It is impossible for me to deconstruct and criticize “proof” of the harm that legal recognition of same sex marriage may or may not inflict because so far no proof has been provided by those claiming that harm to something is the inevitable result.

but he appears afraid to put foward any evidence of his own and argue his point but merely lets others produce arguments which he laughs at and villifies.

I have made no claims about the harm or lack thereof of legal recognition of same sex marriage. So how can I provide proof of claims I have not made?


[qutoe] No matter how many examples are provided you will just refuse to accept them no matter how clear as i have seen many examples. [/quote]No examples have been provided.



[qutoe] To be blunt the reason why Chrisitians think homosexual marriage is wrong is because an all powerful all knowing being called God says so and if you want to disagree with this all powerful all knowing eternal being who created the universe then fine, but be careful what you wish for as you might get it. [/quote]This is a statement of belief, not of fact. Similarly those who believe in the evil mental capacity of Plutoian unicorns are at liberty to make all the statements of belief that they choose but this does not constitute proof of said unicorns.


[qutoe] The fact is that if you look at the anatomy of males and females it is obvious that males were created to interact sexually with females and it is unnatural for two people of the same sex to marry and their design clearly bears testimony to this not just physically but emotionally and this is what i think is at the heart of marriage and lets stop the nonsense about reproduction and sterile couples. [/quote]And it is equally factual that individuals of the same gender can interact sexually spiritually and emotionally.

What is not a fact is your claim that “it is unnatural for two people of the same sex to marry” this is your belief.




[qutoe] A marriage relationship between two men is completely different from that between a man and a woman as in case you haven't noticed there are large differences between men and woman in all areas, as god created them to be different and complimentary and you cannot thus equate a homosexual marriage with a heterosexual one as they are completely different in content. [/quote]How exactly is it different?

What evidence do you have that it is different?

But we can equate same sex marriage with opposite sex marriage but it would seem you world prefer to not do this, your preferences do not make it so.




[qutoe] A child needs both a mother and a father not two mothers or two fathers as each of these parents provides different things for the child. I am not easily convinced by statistics as they are ususally flawed and very inaccurate and you can always find one statistic to disprove another. [/quote]Were you not just imploring us to stop “nonsense” about reproduction? So why are you brining it up?



Can you provide evidence that a child needs both mother and a father?

Can you provide evidence that somehow a child is harmed by having two parents of the same gender?

There is nothing wrong with discrimination as long as their is a valid reason for its existence. In fact discrimination goes on every day it is just a question of what should we use to discriminate and what shouldn't we use to discriminate. eg should we discriminate against those who want to build nuclear bombs in their back gardens and not allow this or should we discriminate against those who want to take cocaine or should we discriminate against those who want to want to have relationships with someone of the same sex or perhaps discriminate against those who want to worship a certain god or those who are a certain skin colour.

You have confused discernment with discrimination. please look up these words and their meanings.


I am curious as to just what valid reason you think exists for discrimination based on the color of ones skin. Do you personally discriminate based on the color of a person’s sin?


[qutoe] I see nothing wrong with discriminating against some things but not all things the question is should we discriminate against those who want to have a homosexual marriage or not. [/quote]But you have just said there are valid reasons to discriminate against groups of people and now you are saying this is not so. please clarify.

You are assuming that homosexuality is something that shouldn't be discriminated against when this is not necessarily the case.

Please share with us your valid reason(s) why discrimination against gays and lesbians is a good thing.

 

[Volos]

double post...sorry

 

[Clarity]

Second – I am not the one making the claims about the harm or lack of harm of legal recognition of same sex marriage. I have just repeatedly noted that those who are claiming that somehow legal recognition of same sex marriage is somehow harmful have yet to provide a concrete example of this harm.

This works both ways as their is no proof that homosexual marriage doesn't harm marriage and this is the point i was making as, if their is no evidence either way then you cannot say that homosexual marriage doesn't cause harm. You are assuming that unless evidence is provided for homosexual unions being harmful then they are not harmful which is bad logic a false negative doesn't equal a positive you could easily turn this around and say that unless there is proof that homosexual unions aren't harmful then they are harmful both these positions are equally invalid logically. In order to come to a conclusion either someone has to prove that homosexual unions are harmful or that homosexual unions are not harmful you cannot say that unless homosexual unions harm a single individual (Clem) then they are non harmful in all cases.

What evidence do you have that it is different?

It is different physically
http://training.seer.cancer.gov/module_anatomy/unit12_1_repdt_intro.html
Men and woman think and interact differently
http://www.brainplace.com/bp/malefemaledif/default.asp
http://www.cyberparent.com/intimate-lovers/male-female-differences.htm

Can you provide evidence that a child needs both mother and a father?
Can you provide evidence that somehow a child is harmed by having two parents of the same gender?

http://inside.bard.edu/academic/specialproj/darling/adolesce.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29901,00.html
http://www.christian.org.uk/pressreleases/2002/may_7_2002.htm

 

[Clem is Me]

So at this point we can conclude that there is no reason to fear homosexual marriage as far as threats to heterosexual marriage or families are concerned.

 

[Subordinationist]

Say that we give "people who prefer the same sex" "full rights". Marriage, adoption, affirmative action, etc. There is just one little problem: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All of which do not like homosexuality. In order for full rights to be institutionalized, these three religion's views must be suppressed, i.e. their holy books. What does this amount to? Religious views being compared or even equated with the KKK and Nazism. Ever wonder what happened to full-time Klan members and Nazi party members? They are a small minority criminalized by society and the media. If the gay and lesbian community want full rights, we must either suppress or change the words of these holy books and the views of these people. The problem is, that it must change, or full rights is not possible, and if the people cannot be changed through use of teaching and logic, then coercion.



.

 

[Clem is Me]

That may be true. But it doesn't threaten my marriage or family.

 

[:æ:]

Say that we give "people who prefer the same sex" "full rights". Marriage, adoption, affirmative action, etc. There is just one little problem: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All of which do not like homosexuality.

Nitpick, there are Christians, Jews, and Muslims that oppose homosexuality, yet there are also Christians, Jews and Muslims that tolerate it. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam themselves are not sentient entities capable if "liking" or "disliking" anything.

In order for full rights to be institutionalized, these three religion's views must be suppressed, i.e. their holy books.

What do you mean by "surpressed"? Surely you don't mean "censored", do you? Or do you mean, "restricted from restricting the rights of other people"?

What does this amount to? Religious views being compared or even equated with the KKK and Nazism.

This already happens, so I don't know why suddenly allowing gays to marry would mean anything.

Ever wonder what happened to full-time Klan members and Nazi party members? They are a small minority criminalized by society and the media. If the gay and lesbian community want full rights, we must either suppress or change the words of these holy books and the views of these people. The problem is, that it must change, or full rights is not possible, and if the people cannot be changed through use of teaching and logic, then coercion.

Your assertions make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Nobody is going to force you to like homosexuality. Nobody is going to make you re-write the Bible. You are free to hate homosexuality all day long till your little heart is content. What you will not be able to do, however, is deny homosexuals the same liberties and protections to which everyone else is entitled under the law.

You don't need to re-write the Bible to pass legislation. In case you forgot, we don't live in a theocracy.

:æ: