Homosexuals and Bisexuals

Shane Roach said:

That's not the line of discussion that led to this exchange. If your argument is that whatever exists now is the standard, then gays are not currently allowed to marry.

Click to expand...

That's not my argument at all.

You have been arguing against the legalization of same-sex marriage. You cited statistics that show homosexuals to be more promiscuous. That implies that you are suggesting that increased promiscuity is a contributing factor as to why same-sex marriage should not be legalized. I pointed out that promiscuity is not a factor in allowing people to marry. You then make a connection to mental health, which I point out is not a criterion for marriage, either.

If that's not the line of discussion, what is the line of discussion? And why bring up promiscuity and mental health at all?

Skaloop said:

If that's not the line of discussion, what is the line of discussion? And why bring up promiscuity and mental health at all?

Click to expand...

BigBadWlf has made multiple claims that any reservations at all against gay marriage are motivated by bigotry. To bolster his claims he has consistently argued that there is massive evidence that there is nothing at all even demonstrably unusual about homosexuality, and has posted references to studies to back those claims.

I took the extra step of actually getting my hands on the studies, and none of them so far say what he claims. In fact some of them state the exact opposite.

The one study I have cited to back claims of my own is one about the Scandinavian countries that illustrates a relationship between the gay marriage, or union, agenda and family breakdown in general. It goes hand in hand with my assertion that gays should not be allowed to marry for the simple reason that marriage is not solely or even mostly about people loving one another and having sex. Marriage has existed for all of recorded history as a tool to regulate sex in order to maintain and enforce lines of responsibility concerning care of women and children on the one hand, and enforcing society's idea of whatever it is women and children owe men on the other.

As old fashioned as this may seem, even today we can see that women have to make significant sacrifices in career and risk in health to have children, and usually benefit from the added financial stability a man can provide. What we no longer have is any idea whatsoever of anything owed the man in return, even so much as to refrain from cheating. On the flip side, some women take the traditional route depending on marriage law to defend their interests only to find that under no fault divorce, the sacrifices they made in not developing an outside profession leave them devastatingly vulnerable if the man chooses to move on.

None of these issues exist in any form with gays. Every aspect of gays getting together, adopting, sharing expenses, and etc, is utterly open to negotiation without regard to gender, whereas marriage was and is still to this day specifically designed (albeit badly, currently) to deal with inherent differences in men and women.

To combine the two sorts of legal relationships into one is to essentially destroy one and replace it with the other.

This is not good public policy. Marriage laws do need some serious updating. They do not, however, need to be done away with or conflated with any relationship anyone might have where people cohabit had have sex. These are simply not the same types of relationships and need to be regulated differently.

Shane Roach said:

That's not the line of discussion that led to this exchange. If your argument is that whatever exists now is the standard, then gays are not currently allowed to marry.

Click to expand...

That depends on where they live. In some nations and states, same-gender couples are allowed to marry.

David.

Shane Roach said:

They do not, however, need to be done away with or conflated with any relationship anyone might have where people cohabit had have sex. These are simply not the same types of relationships and need to be regulated differently.

Click to expand...

Actually, that depends on the nature and length of cohabitation, location and intent. Given you live in: Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, or the District of Columbia. In these areas if you cohabit for a significant (undefined) time, suit requirement of marriage (but are not married), and claim union (regardless of non-married status), you can be classified as legally married via Common Law Marriage laws.

And, as David said, it is legal in some other nations, and in some states of the US for same-sex couples to attain legal marriage status.

Shane Roach said:

It could be argued that the presumption and ego is in presenting homosexuality as a normal behavior

Click to expand...

In a free and rational society, it is normal until proven otherwise.

and acting as if it is any different than many behaviors already restricted by law

Click to expand...

It is... a gay couple having sex and raising kids together is functionally no different than a straight couple having sex and raising kids together. A single gay person living and loving is functionally no different than a straight single person living and living. Of course, some exception could be made between the two... in regards to the effects of hate heaped upon homosexuals.

Sanctient said:

Leviticus 18:22 states that “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

While many homosexual males believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexual activity, and have even gone to great lengths to obscure the bibles original meaning, science has proven there are a number of health risk and diseases involved in homosexual activities. I have provided a link in the description.

Click to expand...

There are a number of health risks and diseases involved in heterosexual activities, too. And homosexual activities (whatever those are) need not carry those risks; two men who are disease free and monogamous are not at risk.

The risk in sexual activities, be they hetero- or homo-, are with irresponsibility and unsafe practices. Neither of which are exclusive to either group.

Shane Roach said:

I imagine for one, finding one's self wired in such a way that something as fundamental as having one's own family, and raising them with the mother or father of one's biological children is simply impossible could make one feel none too pleased with one's lot in life.

Click to expand...

Until one realizes that adoption, surrogacy, and sperm-banking are perfectly viable alternatives.

Social disgust at the practice, even if people were to say, "oh, it's ok for you, but not for me," with all the accompanying gestures and such to indicate the reason why it is "not for me" is that it is "totally disgusting to imagine", that is going to have its effect on a person's self confidence.

Click to expand...

Yep... and that's going to be a long process of deprogramming for many Americans.

So unless you are pondering illegalizing people having emotional reactions to things they find extremely repulsive,

Click to expand...

No... but educating children to not find homoseuality repulsive, and preventing repulsion from having negative legal effects are perfectly reasonable goals.

and also going to somehow change the very fabric of reality itself to somehow make pregnancy possible when men have sex with each other or when women have sex with each other,

Click to expand...

This obsession of yours remains irrelevant to this discussion, btw.

Imagine now a mental health organization that tells you they cannot help you, and that indeed your real problem is in not accepting yourself for who you are, and the rest of it is society's fault...

Click to expand...

Sounds good to me... society is the culprit in practically all problems anyways.

Shane Roach said:

My version of family? Mine? My own, personal version? I invented men, women, sex, pregnancy, and child rearing all on my own?

The demonstrable damage to children where marriage has been undermined cries out against such personal agenda driven politics.

Click to expand...

Yes, your version of "family values"...that is, the modern American Christian notion of the nuclear biological family. Not everyone thinks that's the best idea. I, personally, like the idea of there being more involvement of the extended family - aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc. "Family values" are not a "family", and we'd

And this, Shane, is why I get sarcastic, snippy, and snarky with you. That sentence was not at all the point of my post. The point was that you don't provide any concrete evidence, merely buzzwords ("socialists", "personal agenda driven politics", etc.) combined with an argument from tradition and emotive scare tactics ("If gays get married, then we can no longer oppose the downward slide of society!"). You oppose gay marriage due to amorphous claims that it would "destroy family law," but when asked how you make an argument from common sense that it's "self-evident." You take personal offense at any amount of criticism, act as though presenting citations automatically gives your position greater authority, and demean any opposition with further buzzwords.

Present an argument that doesn't depend on logical fallacies such as appeals to emotion or the argument from tradition, backed by sources that clearly support your position with causative evidence rather than correlation, recognize that the people you're talking to are not trying to destroy your world, and MAYBE people will listen to you.

Until such time, *PLONK*.

Skaloop said:

... two men who are disease free and monogamous are not at risk.

The risk in sexual activities, be they hetero- or homo-, are with irresponsibility and unsafe practices. Neither of which are exclusive to either group.

Click to expand...

Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by sperm and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient. sperm may have a similar impact on humans


Sources
-Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 112, New York: Penguin Group, 1998 (quoting gay writer Michael Lynch).

-Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, "Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits," Science, 27(224): 390-392 (1984).

-S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, "Immune Responses to Spermatozoa in Homosexual Men," Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341 (1983).


The claims above are not altered in anyway to fit any so-called agenda. Still, if you have doubt, research it yourself and provide concrete support for your claims.

andross77 said:

no one is, or let me say, no one should be here decided whether or not a gay or bisexual person should act on their attractions.

Us Christians are trying to tell you that God in His Word says that a gay or bisexual person should not act on their attractions. Understand?

Click to expand...

God doesn’t say that.

Many people like to read that interpretation but that is based largely on politics and questionable translations

Shane Roach said:

The problem is, by your standards, suggesting that blacks have any control over their urge to have sex would be tantamount to racism.

Click to expand...

Are you really saying that blacks have no control over their sexual urges?

All of the accusations of bigotry that spill across these boards are spurious when it deals with the gay agenda.

Click to expand...

No they just stem from recycled arguments and the use of special pleading

And they never are actually answered by those recycling the arguments and engaging in special pleading

Homosexuality is a behavior.

Click to expand...

Not according to the APA

It is not a race or gender.

Click to expand...

Neither is religion…does this make anti-Semitism acceptable?

No one so far has even presented a cogent argument for comparing the regulation of any behavior with laws specifically singling out people of various colors.

Click to expand...

Hundreds have. You just ignore them

It's demonstrably a false comparison, and I think conclusions can be drawn from the number of times the same people make accusations that cannot be substantiated

Click to expand...

Shinny shinny mirror

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-26/#post51417594

Ben-AG said:

Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by sperm and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient. sperm may have a similar impact on humans


Sources
-Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 112, New York: Penguin Group, 1998 (quoting gay writer Michael Lynch).

-Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, "Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits," Science, 27(224): 390-392 (1984).

-S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, "Immune Responses to Spermatozoa in Homosexual Men," Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341 (1983).


The claims above are not altered in anyway to fit any so-called agenda. Still, if you have doubt, research it yourself and provide concrete support for your claims.

Click to expand...

While I have much respect for your post, I also think that we have to consider that homosexuality is more than just sexual behavior and that homosexual sexual behavior (as with heterosexual sexual behavior) consists of a much larger group of activities than just anal penetration. That is, homosexuality is a human condition (like heterosexuality) that takes place between individuals and involves a connection of emotions, cognitions, and behaviors. For that matter, the human body is more than able to accommodate an emotional and cognitive connection between two people (I have heard people argue that this is the most important part of a heterosexual relationship). Likewise, there are other sexual behaviors that the human body can accommodate (e.g., kissing)

Finally, while I have not done such extensive research as you, I think we also fail to include lesbians in this discussion. I am assuming that Lesbian sexual activity is accommodated by the body. However, I may yet be proved wrong.

Ben-AG said:

It seems to me the people who are presented with evidence have already conducted their own primary means of gathering the said information. I do not presume to know the facts, thus the reason I turn to accredited sources who have actually conducted the studies themselves to inform me.

Click to expand...

Paul Cameron, NARTH and the Family Research Institute are not accredited

Now you can bring up the argument that you do not agree with the presented observations because you do not like the source; does that null their observations? Do you have the authority to null data gathered from such studies by pointing out flaws that the people who published the concerning articles missed somehow? Of course, I know, they must have been so reckless in the processes of publication that they did not ask us, the experts, to proof read it.

Click to expand...

They don’t. the process you are obliqully referring to is caled peer review. It is not proof reading per say but legitimate research journals sned copies of research to experts in the specific field the study is in and these experts review all aspects of the research searching for flaws.
Paul Cameron does not publish in legitimate research jounrals he publishes in somehting called “Psybological reprots” which is a pay to publish house that will publish anything you write for a fee.

sidhe said:

And this, Shane, is why I get sarcastic, snippy, and snarky with you. That sentence was not at all the point of my post. The point was that you don't provide any concrete evidence,

Click to expand...

I provide no concrete evidence because the subject is not amenable to concrete evidence. The subject is complex, and involves a lot of things about human behavior that quite simply cannot be known. I honed in on that sentence because it represents your attitude, which is to ignore other people's concerns and then demand a level of proof that is not possible to achieve on either side, while simultaneously arguing that you need proove nothing of your own.

You have ignored extremely detailed explanations of mine and passed them off as illegitimate without even so much as addressing their points. The specific points that you ignore are fairly predictable. I do not think it is an accident they continually are avoided.

Marriage concerns men and women because in order to regulate the issue of children at all, you have to regulate behavior that is specific to men and women. That's the elephant in the room as far as the law portion of this discussion is concerned. Relationships between men and women are different than gay relationships. They need separate rules. That's why, as it turns out, they have had separate rules all through history.

It's not a personality issue. It is a reality issue.

The point was that you don't provide any concrete evidence,

Click to expand...

'
Of course he does and when he does y'all call it biased we go back and forth here... Poisoning the well. Old trick nothing new....But when facts are not "evidence" then we do have a problem... People who are denying to percieve reality as is.... Accepting the data from many theories that are conclusive is beyond biases or speculation...

Sanctient said:

Leviticus 18:22 states that “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

Click to expand...

Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus?

I doubt it
Do you cut your hair?
Wear clothing made of different fabrics?
Allow people with glasses to attend your church?
Keep slaves?
Eat shellfish?

<staff edit>

While many homosexual males believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexual activity, and have even gone to great lengths to obscure the bibles original meaning, science has proven there are a number of health risk and diseases involved in homosexual activities.

Click to expand...

Too bad real refernces cannot be posted to support this claim

I have provided a link in the description.

Click to expand...

Yeah I was geusseing it would be either Dailey of Diggs.
Well if you can&#8217;t post actual arguemtns then post stuff that has been falsified thousands of times

Please, do not associate me with being a homophobe.

Click to expand...

<staff edit>





<staff edit> [/quote]

More of the same old same old anti-gay talking points

Ben-AG said:

The claims above are not altered in anyway to fit any so-called agenda.

Click to expand...

Of course it was. It was selectivley used to promote your agenda

Still, if you have doubt, research it yourself and provide concrete support for your claims.

Click to expand...

Its intersting that you want others to “provide concrete support” for their claims but you happily use Paul Cameron and the FRI and then defend their usage with excessive indignation http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-36/#post51431668 (but no actual evidence in support of your claims)

Philothei said:

'
Of course he does and when he does y'all call it biased we go back and forth here...

Click to expand...

I provide no concrete evidence because the subject is not amenable to concrete evidence.

Poisoning the well. Old trick nothing new....But when facts are not "evidence" then we do have a problem... People who are denying to percieve reality as is.... Accepting the data from many theories that are conclusive is beyond biases or speculation...

Click to expand...

So you are saying that made up evidence is now “facts”?

*BUMP*

BigBadWlf said:

Ben-AG said:

Trends in Reportable Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the United States, 2007

Click to expand...

What is also interesting in this link is:
“Blacks represent only 12 percent of the total U.S. population, but made up about 70 percent of gonorrhea cases and almost half of all chlamydia and syphilis cases in 2007”
so blacks are disproportionately affected by STD’s. Does this fact make racism acceptable?
Why not?





No it is just the facts. Non-white heterosexuals are the group most likely to be infected with HIV/AIDS
Again…does this fact justify racism?

Click to expand...

*BUMP*

Ben-AG said:

I totally agree that we shouldn't compare race to sexuality but to say that sexuality is the same as race is too bold without proof of sexual preference being linked to a genetic predisposition. Without the facts, they are just opinions.

Click to expand...

BigBadWlf said:

to date there are over two thousand studies showing sexual orientation is inborn.

Can you provide legitimately published evidence that sexual orientation is a choice?
That it is the result of how one was raised?
That it is the result of one’s relationship with either parent?
That it is the result of childhood sexual abuse/trauma?
(I will save you time…there are no studies showing any of these things)

Click to expand...