Gay Rights, why is it even an issue?

[Dog]

I dont think that makes you a sexual deviant , but i suppose it depends what you are doing with your left hand and to whom . All kidding a side the gene Leucine-rich repeat transmembrane neuronal protein 1 was discovered to be the primary cause of being left handed .

Edited July 24, 2009 by Dog

[Michael Hardner]

Wilt Chamberlain aside, you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of heterosexual people in Canada who could claim more than say, twenty sexual partners.

Argus... are you seriously trying to use the 20 partner mark to define normalcy ?

So having 19 lovers is not 'poly' ?

I guess sexuality is a subjective thing isn't it ?

[lily]

I dont think that makes you a sexual deviant , but i suppose it depends what you are doing with your left hand and to whom . All kidding a side the gene Leucine-rich repeat transmembrane neuronal protein 1 was discovered to be the primary cause of being left handed .

I thought it was just because I'm special.

Argus... are you seriously trying to use the 20 partner mark to define normalcy ?

So having 19 lovers is not 'poly' ?

I guess sexuality is a subjective thing isn't it ?

So.... who here is normal?

[Michael Hardner]

As established by Argus ... 19 is normal, 20 also normal, but 21... wow... now that is a sick individual.

I agree with the post that stated we are post-pride. Even the pride parade is less about gaynes or even sex then just having a party. The only buttons to sell out at the pride parade this year were the ones that said "Straight"

[zinc]

I dont think that makes you a sexual deviant , but i suppose it depends what you are doing with your left hand and to whom . All kidding a side the gene Leucine-rich repeat transmembrane neuronal protein 1 was discovered to be the primary cause of being left handed .

So if it's a gene, it's normal....yes?

Where is the straight gene located? What chromosome does it lie on?

[lily]

So if it's a gene, it's normal....yes?

Where is the straight gene located? What chromosome does it lie on?

What are you doing here? Have you already met your daily quota?

Or are you just taking a break?

[Bonam]

So if it's a gene, it's normal....yes?

Where is the straight gene located? What chromosome does it lie on?

A huge proportion of the human genome is responsible for the mechanisms, structures, and behaviors associated with reproduction.

[zinc]

A huge proportion of the human genome is responsible for the mechanisms, structures, and behaviors associated with reproduction.

So in that case is a 46 year old man reproducing with a 12 year old girl moral (or "right") granted they've both hit puberty?

Also, sexual anatomy (even going right down to biological reproduction) does not explain sexual orientation, it doesn't tell us why men for instance may have an attraction to Caucasian women but not to Asian women. And love (or a heterosexual attraction) can't entirely be linked to reproduction otherwise infertile women, old women, and any sterile man wouldn't have anyone attracted to them...

[Bonam]

So in that case is a 46 year old man reproducing with a 12 year old girl moral (or "right") granted they've both hit puberty?

You should note that that post was my first in this thread, and I have made no statements whatsoever regarding morality. I was merely responding to your question. If you think that the genetic makeup of humans has no impact on the overwhelming prevalence of heterosexual orientation over homosexual orientation, you are quite thoroughly mistaken. Whatever factors explain the homosexuality of certain individuals, be they genetic, environmental, social, or otherwise, there is no denying that a huge portion of the human genome is associated with the pursuit and execution of heterosexual relationships.

[Remiel]

...ironic when you come to understand the origins of marriage and how it's changed thousands of times in thousands of cultures.

In what ways has it changed that are so radical?

Also, I think the counter-question can also be asked: If the same legal rights are guaranteed, why are some people so adamant that they must be able to call it "marriage" ?

As for another question that was raised: Is it legal for a single person to adopt in Canada? The answer has implications for what I may argue about adoption.

And lastly, as for polygamy and such, I would bet that there will be no legal benefits to marriage before polygamy is made completely legal.

Sorry for the disjointedness.

[zinc]

In what ways has it changed that are so radical?

Where do we start? We can go back and see how the Mesopotamians regarding married as slave unions, dowry was almost always a prerequisite as we come close from BCE to CE, endogamy and exogamy, even the concept of love originated in the 19th century...

Also, I think the counter-question can also be asked: If the same legal rights are guaranteed, why are some people so adamant that they must be able to call it "marriage" ?

For the same reason a black person is entitled to drink out of the same water fountain as everyone else. I don't understand the obsession with this word on the side of those who are so adamant and want to "own" it. If you don't like sharing the word marriage with homosexuals then why don't you call it something else, fair?

Contrast it like this, I may not like rap music...I may not like it so much as to not even think it's music but "noise" - but do I have the right to force rap artists and rap producers to stop using the word music? It's very simple, if I don't like rap music then I simply don't listen to it, and if their use of the word 'music' offends me....then tough.

As for another question that was raised: Is it legal for a single person to adopt in Canada? The answer has implications for what I may argue about adoption.

Why shouldn't they be? Better single parent than no parents at all

And lastly, as for polygamy and such, I would bet that there will be no legal benefits to marriage before polygamy is made completely legal.

What do you mean?

[zinc]

You should note that that post was my first in this thread, and I have made no statements whatsoever regarding morality. I was merely responding to your question. If you think that the genetic makeup of humans has no impact on the overwhelming prevalence of heterosexual orientation over homosexual orientation, you are quite thoroughly mistaken. Whatever factors explain the homosexuality of certain individuals, be they genetic, environmental, social, or otherwise, there is no denying that a huge portion of the human genome is associated with the pursuit and execution of heterosexual relationships.

Oh I'm an evolutionist, of course I believe we all have these "animal" instincts to "reproduce" but I also know we operate on logic. An urge for a kleptomaniac to steal may be inherent but doesn't make it right and certainly doesn't prove their preference in terms of what to steal next

[Remiel]

Where do we start? We can go back and see how the Mesopotamians regarding married as slave unions, dowry was almost always a prerequisite as we come close from BCE to CE, endogamy and exogamy, even the concept of love originated in the 19th century...

Still, the idea that the way some things are conceived of may change is not the same as them being able to change in any way. A dog may be considered by different people a piece of property, a pet, a loyal friend, or a tasty meal. Hot score, however? Big no no.

For the same reason a black person is entitled to drink out of the same water fountain as everyone else. I don't understand the obsession with this word on the side of those who are so adamant and want to "own" it. If you don't like sharing the word marriage with homosexuals then why don't you call it something else, fair?

Contrast it like this, I may not like rap music...I may not like it so much as to not even think it's music but "noise" - but do I have the right to force rap artists and rap producers to stop using the word music? It's very simple, if I don't like rap music then I simply don't listen to it, and if their use of the word 'music' offends me....then tough.

Well, to get one point out of the way, since the language is shared there must be a certain amount of agreement on terms.

I see where you are coming from, but it is not the case that everything can or should be simply renamed if it is not as inclusive as some would like. Though I know this example has some technical deficiencies, I think it will get the point across: A woman may think that it is insulting to her that she be called a female instead of a male, given the perceived superior social status males have enjoyed. She may cite the same example that you did, that she merely wants to drink out of the same fountain. But legally, she is still a woman, or a female. She may be entitled to get a sex change to become a male, but she will not be considered a male without a sex change.

I think you own rap music example, while somewhat relevent, is off the mark as an analogy. It does not have the same type of gravity as marriage does, and it is niche, and avoidable. We are not talking about you forcing the rap artists and rap producers to not call their rap music, we are talking about the rap artists and producers forcing everyone else to call rap music. The minority/majority is reversed in your example, and that simply does not work, in my opinion. Perhaps you can find a better example?

Why shouldn't they be? Better single parent than no parents at all

That may be your opinion, but I was looking for what is legally accepted.

What do you mean?

I mean that I think it is more likely we will stop assigning legal benefits or licenses to be married to anybody than that we will start assigning legal benefits to second, third, fourth, fifth (et cetera) spouses. In other words, it is more likely that the State will wipe its hands of marriage completely than get tangled up in sanctioned polygamy.

[Dog]

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973,not because the science supported it but because they thought it would reduce the stigma . Since then we have discovered that homosexuals are six times more likely to try to commit suicide , fifteen times more likely to be bulimic . 38% of homosexual men have antisocial personality disorder (Ellis 1995 ) It is clear now that homosexuality is in fact a mental illness not an alternative life style .

Edited July 24, 2009 by Dog

[M.Dancer]

It is clear now that homosexuality is in fact a mental illness not an alternative life style .

You are making a false assumption. A similar assumption could be made that the disorders are the result of the continued stigma of being gay.

Sort of like saying that Dentists have a much higher rate of suicide than the norm, therefore dentistry is in fact a mental illness and not a profession.

I'm pretty sure that homsexuality is no more a lifestyle than hetrosexuality.

[Dog]

I am not the one saying that being Gay is an alternative life style this is put forth by almost all gay groups .

Maybe consider this .

A strong case can be made that homosexuality itself is mentally disturbed. Rotello, a gay advocate said that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many the central value of existence, and nothing else not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. Homosexual promiscuity fuels the AIDS crisis , but even that tragedy it is not allowed to interfere with sexual freedom.

According to Rotello, the idea of taking responsibility to avoid infecting others with the HIV virus is completely foreign to many groups trying to counter AIDS. The idea of protecting oneself is promoted, but protecting others is not mentioned in most official condom promotions . The core gay behavior is both potentially fatal to others, and often suicidal.

* Rotello said " It should be considered "mentally disturbed" to risk losing one's life for sexual liberation. This is surely among the most extreme risks practiced by any significant fraction of society. I have not found a higher risk of death accepted by any similar-sized population " .

If we ask the question "Is mental illness inherent in the homosexual condition?" the answer would have to be yes .

* Rotello, G. (1997): Sexual Ecology. AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. Dutton, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK.

[M.Dancer]

I am not the one saying that being Gay is an alternative life style this is put forth by almost all gay groups .

All gay groups? You have a list?

I don't know any who call being gay a lifestyle.

[Dog]

First you must read a little closer , i said almost all .

Google gay alternative lifestyle and you will see almost 1 million hits . I think you are concentrating too much on the gay lifestyle comment and should consider what a Gay advocate like Rotello and his reserch found .

[M.Dancer]

First you must read a little closer , i said almost all .

Google gay alternative lifestyle and you will see almost 1 million hits . I think you are concentrating too much on the gay lifestyle comment and should consider what a Gay advocate like Rotello and his reserch found .

Googling proves nothing. Google alternative hampsters and you will get 598,000 hits

Edited July 24, 2009 by M.Dancer

[Dog]

Fair enough but rather then getting hung up on the term "alternative lifestyle" you may want to read what spme of these prominant reserchers have found about mental illness and homosexuality .

Gonsiorek, J.C. (1982): Results of psychological testing on homosexual populations. In: Homosexuality. Social, Psychological and Biological Issues. California,

Riess, B. (1980): Psychological tests in homosexuality. In: Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Appraisal.

Ross, M.W. (1988): Homosexuality and mental health: a cross-cultural review.

Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel (2001): Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders.

[zinc]

Still, the idea that the way some things are conceived of may change is not the same as them being able to change in any way. A dog may be considered by different people a piece of property, a pet, a loyal friend, or a tasty meal. Hot score, however? Big no no.

I'm sorry but how does this relate to marriage? Are you insinuating that gay marriage will change heterosexual marriages? I just gave you an example of how the definition has changed hundreds of times and what we consider taboo today was perfectly legitimate in the past.

Well, to get one point out of the way, since the language is shared there must be a certain amount of agreement on terms.

I see where you are coming from, but it is not the case that everything can or should be simply renamed if it is not as inclusive as some would like. Though I know this example has some technical deficiencies, I think it will get the point across: A woman may think that it is insulting to her that she be called a female instead of a male, given the perceived superior social status males have enjoyed. She may cite the same example that you did, that she merely wants to drink out of the same fountain. But legally, she is still a woman, or a female. She may be entitled to get a sex change to become a male, but she will not be considered a male without a sex change.

But she's considered an equal amongst other women. When I debate I get this a lot, many people say to me "oh, so you're against male restrooms and female restroom!?" and I tell them, no, because they're equal...I would be against restrooms for gay people and restrooms for straight ones...

I think you own rap music example, while somewhat relevent, is off the mark as an analogy. It does not have the same type of gravity as marriage does, and it is niche, and avoidable. We are not talking about you forcing the rap artists and rap producers to not call their rap music, we are talking about the rap artists and producers forcing everyone else to call rap music. The minority/majority is reversed in your example, and that simply does not work, in my opinion. Perhaps you can find a better example?

Look at the analogy like this, is rap new? Has rap only been called "noise" in the past because it was a stigma to be a rap artist?

I mean that I think it is more likely we will stop assigning legal benefits or licenses to be married to anybody than that we will start assigning legal benefits to second, third, fourth, fifth (et cetera) spouses. In other words, it is more likely that the State will wipe its hands of marriage completely than get tangled up in sanctioned polygamy.

Well that's what we call a slippery slope logical fallacy, if we let "X" then inevitably "Y" will happen. You can't choose whether or not to like pizza but you can certainly choose how many pieces to take.

[zinc]

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973,not because the science supported it but because they thought it would reduce the stigma . Since then we have discovered that homosexuals are six times more likely to try to commit suicide , fifteen times more likely to be bulimic . 38% of homosexual men have antisocial personality disorder (Ellis 1995 ) It is clear now that homosexuality is in fact a mental illness not an alternative life style .

I think stupidity is a mental illness.

Your idiotic and nonsensical assertion that it's a mental illness and only changed due to political correctness is equivalent to me saying the same thing about women's rights, black rights, or even the right for left-handed individuals to be considered normal. And 38% of homosexual men have an antisocial personality disorder, is this proven? Has it been peer-reviewed and scientifically analyzed?

A strong case can be made that homosexuality itself is mentally disturbed. Rotello, a gay advocate said that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many the central value of existence, and nothing else not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. Homosexual promiscuity fuels the AIDS crisis , but even that tragedy it is not allowed to interfere with sexual freedom.

According to Rotello, the idea of taking responsibility to avoid infecting others with the HIV virus is completely foreign to many groups trying to counter AIDS. The idea of protecting oneself is promoted, but protecting others is not mentioned in most official condom promotions . The core gay behavior is both potentially fatal to others, and often suicidal.

* Rotello said " It should be considered "mentally disturbed" to risk losing one's life for sexual liberation. This is surely among the most extreme risks practiced by any significant fraction of society. I have not found a higher risk of death accepted by any similar-sized population " .

If we ask the question "Is mental illness inherent in the homosexual condition?" the answer would have to be yes .

* Rotello, G. (1997): Sexual Ecology. AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. Dutton, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK.

Two-thirds of the newly infected AIDS-patients are attributed to heterosexual sex. In the United States alone African-Americans have the highet ratio of HIV/AIDS infections...

so, are these mental illnesses as well?

The most popular book on the HIV/AIDS epidemic is called 'The River' - it's several hundred pages but well worth the read, it'll make you appear a lot less ignorant.

[Dog]

zinc i read Hoopers book almost 10 years ago but it is a hypothesis that has been disproven and now considered dated by the majority of the virological community . Hoopers theory has been replaced by the monkey hunter/butcher theory published earlier this year (Nature Feb 4, 1999 . The statements that seem to bother you most are not mine but those of Rotellos , may i suggest you read his research before you start labling people ignorant .

You may also want to read the latest findings by the CDC (August 3, 2008), that show the only group that still shows an increase in HIV Aids is homosexuals .

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVInc...se-08032008.htm

My intention was not to get into a discussion about HIV Aids but that the current science points to homosexuality as a mental illness .

[zinc]

zinc i read Hoopers book almost 10 years ago but it is a hypothesis that has been disproven and now considered dated by the majority of the virological community . Hoopers theory has been replaced by the monkey hunter/butcher theory published earlier this year (Nature Feb 4, 1999 . The statements that seem to bother you most are not mine but those of Rotellos , may i suggest you read his research before you start labling people ignorant .

Well actually this proves you didn't read his book, because Hooper brings up the hunter/butcher theory and talks about it in immense detail, did you just skip over those chapters? He provides what he thinks happened but that's what authors do, present the evidence and then their opinions, he just presented a vast amount of theories.

You may also want to read the latest findings by the CDC (August 3, 2008), that show the only group that still shows an increase in HIV Aids is homosexuals .

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVInc...se-08032008.htm

Are we talking about AIDS infections specifically in the United States on a Canadian forum? I was talking about infections globally, this removes the ignoramus bias of "Gays cause AIDS" - but if I'm going to bite into this argument, would you also say that being black is an illness based on these CDC findings?

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3563/7c...nosesbyrach.jpg

And by the way, do you know the ratio of AIDS infections amongst gay women? You'd be surprised...

My intention was not to get into a discussion about HIV Aids but that the current science points to homosexuality as a mental illness

What legitimate scientific organizations agree with your statement? Could you at least name one? Simply asserting it in every post doesn't make it so

[Remiel]

Well that's what we call a slippery slope logical fallacy, if we let "X" then inevitably "Y" will happen. You can't choose whether or not to like pizza but you can certainly choose how many pieces to take.

I am not sure where you are getting this idea of a slippery slope fallacy in what I was saying, unless you think I was saying that allowing gay marriage means that we will end up with polygamy. Being too lazy to go back and look at where polygamy was mentioned before, which I was responding to, I think that that was the idea I was addressing, not falling into.

Anyway, I am firmly in the " Gay marriage has been legistlated for, let us not revisit it in the Commons, " camp. So rather than keep engaging in a contrarian attempt to come up with some reasons to object, I think I will just leave things be.