Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Veyrlian]

Yes, barely related. Why are sterile heterosexuals "allowed" to marry? Because for thousands of years there was no way to know, and all heterosexuals were not allowed, mind you, but required to marry before sex.

Why are old people past child bearing years "allowed" to marry? So that the woman, who sacrificed her life to child rearing and bearing, could have someone to take care of her in her old age, should some gentleman be willing.

Why do I not consider gays using artificial insemination the same thing? Because artificial insemination isn't the same thing. That's why.

Useful distinctions must be allowed in law where they are necessary to address specific issues.

Well, true. In the good old days it was also allowed to divorce your wife or get a new one if she was found infertile. And it was always the woman's fault btw. For thousands of years people just made up stuff they knew nothing about, much like some people today. Ironic!

So you don't think gay people deserve to be taken care of when they are old, by the person they wish to spend their lives with?

Children born by artificial insemination are not on the same level as children born the "normal way"? They or their parents don't deserve the same rights?

"Useful" distinctions indeed.

 

[Veyrlian]

I think a lot of it honestly has to do with not wishing to admit their system of morality is defunct, not really very moral, and based on absurdities. People don't like having their value systems deconstructed and social acceptance of such an open nature as national gay marriage being a reality is pretty much a walking, talking rejection of the sort of religious morality that many communities have made for themselves. Considering it's on such a basic structure as the family level just grinds their gears even more.

*shrugs* If people really want to stand in the way of social progress like that, they shouldn't be surprised when they're left on the side of the road.

So they are afraid. I just don't think their fear of change is much of an excuse when they so blatantly step on other people's rights.

 

[SiderealExalt]

So they are afraid. I just don't think their fear of change is much of an excuse when they so blatantly step on other people's rights.

It's what I find so disturbing about the continued fertility, child rearing angle. In one breathe the SOCIAL concept of family(protecting it, providing for it, having a healthy social relationship with in it) is lauded and it is feared that marriage ultimately destroys these things(not withstanding that it's a family's responsibility to create and uphold those things).

Then at the same time, a basic biological process that is devoid of that social context, ie the biological process of procreation is thrown about as a supposedly valid argument to bar gays marriage. And in the process of using both arguments, reduce gays as subhuman people who are not only facing biological roadblocks to a healthy marriage, but also are emotionally and morally incapable of doing so.

That disconnect and the level of spite you need to even conceptualize other people that way is rather disturbing and I would find it such even if the mystical argument wasn't there to make it more absurd.

 

[Veyrlian]

It's what I find so disturbing about the continued fertility, child rearing angle. In one breathe the SOCIAL concept of family(protecting it, providing for it, having a healthy social relationship with in it) is lauded and it is feared that marriage ultimately destroys these things(not withstanding that it's a family's responsibility to create and uphold those things).

Then at the same time, a basic biological process that is devoid of that social context, ie the biological process of procreation is thrown about as a supposedly valid argument to bar gays marriage. And in the process of using both arguments, reduce gays as subhuman people who are not only facing biological roadblocks to a healthy marriage, but also are emotionally and morally incapable of doing so.

That disconnect and the level of spite you need to even conceptualize other people that way is rather disturbing and I would find it such even if the mystical argument wasn't there to make it more absurd.

It is much harder to mistreat people you empathize with. So, it is probably a requirement to think that "they are not like US", "I mean their PARTS DON'T FIT" "they are much more promiscuous and icky and not deserving and SATAN whispers in their ear". It's no wonder they are so against it that their children would be taught tolerance and empathy to these creatures. It is much better to keep them separate from real people, preferably forgotten. And this message of empathy they call indoctrination. Tsk.

 

[beechy]

The laws in place for unmarried couples these days attempt to simulate marriage laws, but since they have ditched the requirement to get married first, they are often not very effective.

There is no requirement that people be married before procreating.

This does not change the purpose of marriage. It just means the exact same people who broke our marriage laws to begin with are insisting that we break them down even further.

What people are those?

Present your court cases if you think they're applicable.

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (Mass. S. Ct.) contains an eloquent description of the purpose of marriage. Here's an excerpt and link:

We begin by considering the nature of civil marriage itself. Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution ... ​

Without question, civil marriage enhances the "welfare of the community." It is a "social institution of the highest importance." ​

French v. McAnarney, supra. Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones. It is central to the way the Commonwealth identifies individuals, provides for the orderly distribution of property, ensures that children and adults are cared for and supported whenever possible from private rather than public funds, and tracks important epidemiological and demographic data. Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. "It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition.​

...​

Without the right to marry--or more properly, the right to choose to marry--one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's "avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship." Baker v. State, supra at 229. Because civil marriage is central to the lives of individuals and the welfare of the community, our laws assiduously protect the individual's right to marry against undue government incursion. Laws may not "interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry."​

 

[SiderealExalt]

It is much harder to mistreat people you empathize with. So, it is probably a requirement to think that "they are not like US", "I mean their PARTS DON'T FIT" "they are much more promiscuous and icky and not deserving and SATAN whispers in their ear". It's no wonder they are so against it that their children would be taught tolerance and empathy to these creatures. It is much better to keep them separate from real people, preferably forgotten. And this message of empathy they call indoctrination. Tsk.

Speaking as one of the evilgrimdark Other who is "NOT like THEM!" or believe in their God(thus meaning Satan whispers in my ear) tisk tisk indeed

 

[Wyzaard]

I didn't cherry pick this sentence.

You cherry-pick everything, including which claims you choose to back up... such as your supposed skills in epistemology.

Bring it... should we set up another thread?

 

[Wyzaard]

The point is simply this -- the very thing you say is so supernatural and ridiculous is the thing that defines you, me, or anyone else as fundamentally different from a potato chip.

Nice claim. Now... back it up, preferably with something a little more substantial than 'intuition'.

 

[CraigBaugher]

Nice claim. Now... back it up, preferably with something a little more substantial than 'intuition'.

Can you prove that God does not exist?

Can you prove how the earth was created?

Can you prove evolution?

The facts are, No you cannot... Everything you present will be ideas, not proven fact, and there is no proven facts, just circumstantial evidence.

There are far too many species of insects, mamals, fowl, fish, plant life, etc., to ever evolve from the same one cell life. Even scientist believe there was an instant explosion of life...

 

[Exhausted]

Can you prove that God does not exist?

Can you prove how the earth was created?

Can you prove evolution?

The facts are, No you cannot... Everything you present will be ideas, not proven fact, and there is no proven facts, just circumstantial evidence.

Oh, the ignorance. Science isn't about proving absolute facts. It's about testing an idea to the best of our ability, and finding out if it works. When the idea tests wrong, we change the idea. I don't think anyone but the religious or ignorant ask for absolute proof. If you have any evidence worth sharing, that would be sufficient.

There are far too many species of insects, mamals, fowl, fish, plant life, etc., to ever evolve from the same one cell life. Even scientist believe there was an instant explosion of life...

Now, see, if you could show this to be true in a scientific setting, do you have any idea how famous and rich you could be? It's something I've always wondered about people who attack evolution, despite it being incredibly popular, fantastically supported, and the foundation of modern biology.

If, for example, scientists are godless heathens conspiring to make evolution seem true, then why are they doing it? If a scientist today revealed evidence of evolution being flat out wrong, that scientist would be instantly famous. Indeed, many creationists make careers out of spreading anti-evolution propaganda. So if there was real evidence to be shown that evolution was wrong, not only would the scientist who discovered this evidence be famous around the world, but rich from book deals and the like.

AND YET, evolution is accepted everywhere, by everyone, except fringe extremists willing to be ignorant and delusional.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Can you prove that God does not exist?

Tea kettle on Pluto. An idea does not gain literal existence based on only the ability of someone to think it up. You might as well ask to prove that the hallucinations of a schizophrenic does not exist and other asinine questions. More interestingly. Where as Christians do not believe in any gods but their own. The question is just as easily put as Can you prove Shiva does not exist? Or Zeus, or Re, or Osiris, or Mithras, or Legba, or...you get the idea. The question is self defeating.

Can you prove how the earth was created?

Wrong question. It's, can you prove that life sustaining planets are created. Current information points very VERY strongly to no, no and......no.

Can you prove evolution?

A biologist can. The Scientific Theory of Evolution is the detail explanation OF evolution. Not that evolution happens. We know it happens. Yeesh...bloody high school science.

The facts are, No you cannot... Everything you present will be ideas, not proven fact, and there is no proven facts, just circumstantial evidence.

This is relativism. Yet another self defeating position.

 

[David Brider]

I've already posted my definition of homosexuality and exactly why it is correct. Apparently I am going to have to save yet another of my posts to present over and over again when people claim something has not been addressed.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-45/#post51475849

I think you might have linked to the wrong post there. There's nothing in that post that offers a definition of homosexuality.

David.

 

[David Brider]

Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic.

"We investigated the potential to engage in homosexual behavior in 6001 female and 3152 male twins and their siblings finding that 32.8&#37; of the men and 65.4% of the women reported such potential (p<0.001). 91.5% of these men and 98.3% of these women reported no overt homosexual behavior during the preceding 12 months. The potential to engage in homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men (37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those for overt homosexual behavior."

Please note that in addition to referring to homosexuality as a behavior...

No, it refers to (as you yourself have highlighted) "homosexual behaviour". Now granted that that's pretty much of a cop-out anyway (what exactly is "homosexual behaviour"? Unless anyone can suggest a behaviour that's exhibited universally by all homosexual people and not by anybody else, it's a meaningless phrase), but it doesn't say "homosexuality is a behaviour". As Skaloop pointed out in reply to you, if the writers of that report had believed that homosexuality is a behaviour, they'd have just written "homosexuality" and not "homosexual behaviour".

I notice that you still haven't responded to my question - if you persist in considering homosexuality to be a behaviour, could you explain exactly what form that behaviour takes?

David.

 

[Shane Roach]

First, the study itself calls into question whether or not there is anything outside the control of a person concerning homosexuality. Secondly, I already described how saying "homosexuality" concerns a behavior is a simple matter of language.

Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic.

"We investigated the potential to engage in homosexual behavior in 6001 female and 3152 male twins and their siblings finding that 32.8% of the men and 65.4% of the women reported such potential (p<0.001). 91.5% of these men and 98.3% of these women reported no overt homosexual behavior during the preceding 12 months. The potential to engage in homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men (37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those for overt homosexual behavior."

Please note that in addition to referring to homosexuality as a behavior, it also contradicts the idea that it is not learned or learnable. Homosexual potential is widespread, but the behavior itself is limited. In cases where some genetic influence was recognized, even then only a portion of gays had the genetic influence, and many who were not gay had the genetic influence but still behaved heterosexually.

So both from the purely linguistic and even from the sense of attraction, there appears to be no support for the idea that the scientific community is of one mind that the phrase, "homosexuality is a behavior," is somehow unscientific or inaccurate.

 

[Polycarp1]

Shane, what kind of behavior are you exhibiting on this board? Would we be justified in judging you based purely on it? Would God be justified in judging you purely on it? Is there a parallel between my questions and what you're saying?

 

[Shane Roach]

There is no requirement that people be married before procreating.

What people are those?

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (Mass. S. Ct.) contains an eloquent description of the purpose of marriage. Here's an excerpt and link:

We begin by considering the nature of civil marriage itself. Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution ... ​

Without question, civil marriage enhances the "welfare of the community." It is a "social institution of the highest importance." ​

French v. McAnarney, supra. Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones. It is central to the way the Commonwealth identifies individuals, provides for the orderly distribution of property, ensures that children and adults are cared for and supported whenever possible from private rather than public funds, and tracks important epidemiological and demographic data. Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. "It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition.​

...​

Without the right to marry--or more properly, the right to choose to marry--one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's "avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship." Baker v. State, supra at 229. Because civil marriage is central to the lives of individuals and the welfare of the community, our laws assiduously protect the individual's right to marry against undue government incursion. Laws may not "interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry."​

It's informative to replace "marriage" with "procreation" in these and see where it makes sense and where it does not.

All of these things are true about marriage, but they are true for an underlying reason -- procreation is an important matter, happens between people, thus gives rise to a lot of distinct legal issues that have had to be dealt with over the years. Socialists simply do not want us to be able to self govern in this matter any more, so they are defining away the useful aspects of the institution.

I suppose I knew at least one court disagreed with me because I read portions of the Iowa decision, but there is nothing of particular note here. It is basically socialist, anti-Christian talking points being parroted by socialist, anti-Christian judges.

 

[Shane Roach]

It is much harder to mistreat people you empathize with.

I had a gay uncle who died of AIDS and more than one gay friend. Your side comments here about the nature of people who disagree with you are inappropriate and inaccurate.

 

[Shane Roach]

If, for example, scientists are godless heathens conspiring to make evolution seem true, then why are they doing it? If a scientist today revealed evidence of evolution being flat out wrong, that scientist would be instantly famous. Indeed, many creationists make careers out of spreading anti-evolution propaganda. So if there was real evidence to be shown that evolution was wrong, not only would the scientist who discovered this evidence be famous around the world, but rich from book deals and the like.

AND YET, evolution is accepted everywhere, by everyone, except fringe extremists willing to be ignorant and delusional.

Evolution as the origin of species is institutionalized as it benefits the group as a whole. It is used to undercut the ability of people to self govern. Because we are a free society, people can choose whether to join a religion or not, and if so which. People are not allowed any input into what goes on in scientific research, and the benefit of research on things such as evolution as the origin of species is almost totally to do with setting up academia as the authority on apocalyptic knowledge.

They no more know where life came from, or how there got to be so much variety than the man on the moon. It is the most accepted model because it is the only model. They change it at will, then claim it is "knowledge", "the best model we have," and on and on.

The benefit is they begin to replace freedom of religion with a powerful governmental bureaucracy that will decide what is right and wrong, what is good or bad, just as the Church used to do before it was finally separated from the state.

There's a lot of power and money in it for them. That's why careers are wrecked these days on the suspicion that someone might not support evolution as the origin of species, not because the theory itself holds much water.

All of this relating to homosexuality simply in the sense that this decision of the APA to back the movement is a political one as well.

Psychiatry, Gay Activism, and the Medicalization of Behavior

 

[FedererFan]

The laws in place for unmarried couples these days attempt to simulate marriage laws, but since they have ditched the requirement to get married first, they are often not very effective. This does not change the purpose of marriage. It just means the exact same people who broke our marriage laws to begin with are insisting that we break them down even further.

Present your court cases if you think they're applicable.

In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008).

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008).

Varnum v. Brien, 2009 WL 874044 (Iowa 2009).

Clearly marriage isn't seen by the law as merely an institution for raising children. There are other important things that marriage provides to couples even if they do not have children. If the couple being able to and wanting to procreate was the reason for marriage, certainly logic concludes that infertile, elderly, and those that don't want children should not be able to get married. To say that they can despite the purpose underlying marriage is not a logical argument.

Further, even if marriage were solely for raising children, unless you think gays should not be able to adopt or procreate, then I don't see how you can say they shouldn't get married. Gays are not going to stop raising children so wouldn't it be best for those children for their parents to be able to get married?

 

[Shane Roach]

In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008).

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008).

Varnum v. Brien, 2009 WL 874044 (Iowa 2009).

Clearly marriage isn't seen by the law as merely an institution for raising children. There are other important things that marriage provides to couples even if they do not have children. If the couple being able to and wanting to procreate was the reason for marriage, certainly logic concludes that infertile, elderly, and those that don't want children should not be able to get married. To say that they can despite the purpose underlying marriage is not a logical argument.

Further, even if marriage were solely for raising children, unless you think gays should not be able to adopt or procreate, then I don't see how you can say they shouldn't get married. Gays are not going to stop raising children so wouldn't it be best for those children for their parents to be able to get married?

I appreciate the court cases. I really do. But unless you intend to have this discussion only with me and approximately once or twice a week, it would be helpful if you provided some statements. It's not just a minor thing for me to get to the law library.

I'm not sure, but I do not think court cases are copyright protected are they? You may well have a right to post the whole darned thing, is what I am getting at.

Don't take my word for it before you do it though.....

As to your second point, I have addressed it I think here.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-37/#post51432604

To sum up, we need the right to retain useful distinctions in order to regulate matters unique to the institution of marriage, not just generalized rules for anyone who happens to end up caring for a child after the fact.

It is fascinating to me to watch people seemingly purposefully denying any distinction between gays and heterosexuals where procreation, family, and marriage are concerned. Some people even seem to get so into it that they imagine no one can actually see any real difference, and from there spring to hating anyone who suggests there is one on the grounds that they must be the worst sorts of bigots.

Then, when I break it down, other people will come in and say, "well of course, no one is arguing that."

Of course people are arguing to destroy the distinction between heterosexuals as the model for the family unit. Of course they are... What other purpose is there for trying to thrust people into the laws concerning marriage other than to destroy the institution as it stands now?

People argue on the one hand, "marriage has changed and is currently outmoded," and on the other hand, "no one wants to destroy marriage." Well, if you think it is outmoded and your "fix" is to simply turn it into a rubber stamp from the state for anyone cohabiting to get on demand, then it seems to me you are destroying the unique institution of marriage.