Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Leafless]

Society will only improve on the gains that gays have achieved. Todays kids are smarter than some parents and will school the ignorant parents accordingly.

Older children and teens to-day through no fault of their own make unwise assessments relating to the homosexual lifestyle for the simple reason they lack life's experiences and are therefore ignorant to homosexual propaganda.

Ask any teen to-day relating to the homosexual lifestyle and SSM and they will reply in most cases, or something to the effect: 'if they don't bother me, what's the harm'.

[Leafless]

Don't blame the heterosexual society in general who had nothing to do with SSM legislation.

NOthing to do with the legislation, because too many of them were fighting against it.

Nothing to do with the legislation because the federal government was to cowardly to allow a national referendum to answer this question and only allowed tyrannical judges and courts and parliament to answer the question totally bypassing the electorate.

[ScottSA]

Older children and teens to-day through no fault of their own make unwise assessments relating to the homosexual lifestyle for the simple reason they lack life's experiences and are therefore ignorant to homosexual propaganda.

Ask any teen to-day relating to the homosexual lifestyle and SSM and they will reply in most cases, or something to the effect: 'if they don't bother me, what's the harm'.

It also has to do with a general lack of critical thinking skills that come along later in life. Some people never quite pick up on them, which is why some people don't understand the subtleties between terms used by the homosexual lobby or why those terms are used. Sophomoric and largely irrelevant arguments like the assertion that if homosexuality is genetic it must be ok, or the completely misleading argument that homosexual marriage is somehow a "right", are rarely seen as the foolishness they are by the so-called "progressives", who drift along watching the slippery slope slip by in perfect ignorance of the implications.

[marcinmoka]

Scott, I realize we have a very different moral opinion on this issue, and I will admit, FORCING a priest or a minister to carry out a wedding they personally do not approve of is crossing the line.

But, if they find one who is willing (and I'm sure there are), how does gay marriage threaten my heterosexual marriage and/or my children's upbringing? Lord knows many heterosexual couples do things which are equally considered sinful by all biblical standards. Having said that, I take it you are fairly devout, no? And if so, is your objection on religious grounds?

[sharkman]

Scott, I realize we have a very different moral opinion on this issue, and I will admit, FORCING a priest or a minister to carry out a wedding they personally do not approve of is crossing the line.

But, if they find one who is willing (and I'm sure there are), how does gay marriage threaten my heterosexual marriage and/or my children's upbringing? Lord knows many heterosexual couples do things which are equally considered sinful by all biblical standards. Having said that, I take it you are fairly devout, no? And if so, is your objection on religious grounds?

You are asking the wrong question. You might as well ask, how does a guy murdering his wife affect MY marriage, and my children's upbringing. Answer, it doesn't affect either.

The questions need to be along the lines of how will fundamentally changing the institution of marriage affect society in 30 or 40 years.

[gc1765]

You are asking the wrong question. You might as well ask, how does a guy murdering his wife affect MY marriage, and my children's upbringing. Answer, it doesn't affect either.

How does same-sex marriage, as described above, affect ANYONE who is not a willing participant?

The questions need to be along the lines of how will fundamentally changing the institution of marriage affect society in 30 or 40 years.

And what would your answer be?

[marcinmoka]

You might as well ask, how does a guy murdering his wife affect MY marriage, and my children's upbringing

It does, because it frightens me. It will create tension and people might change their habits. If someone is WILLING to murder someone else, it makes me worried about the safety of my own wife and children.

I don't really see any parallels between gay marriage and murder.

The questions need to be along the lines of how will fundamentally changing the institution of marriage affect society in 30 or 40 years.

My guess........Dj's will be just as bad, Dresses will be just as expansive (adjusted for inflation of course), people will get just as drunk, but other than that, it won't. If 10% of people are gay today, than I think it's safe to assume that 10% of people will be gay tomorrow, or next year, or in 30 years.

[ScottSA]

Scott, I realize we have a very different moral opinion on this issue, and I will admit, FORCING a priest or a minister to carry out a wedding they personally do not approve of is crossing the line.

But, if they find one who is willing (and I'm sure there are), how does gay marriage threaten my heterosexual marriage and/or my children's upbringing? Lord knows many heterosexual couples do things which are equally considered sinful by all biblical standards. Having said that, I take it you are fairly devout, no? And if so, is your objection on religious grounds?

I think sharkman has answered the philosophical question about as well as I could, but to answer your more personal question, I am about as devout as Lenin, if by that you mean am I a member of a Christian Church. I am not. I send my kids to a private Catholic school, and they have all been baptized in the Catholic Church, but that's because I like the idea of having morality instiled in my kids from a young age. I once made a half-hearted attempt at joining myself, but the priest thought my reasons weren't quite up to snuff, after I explained that I liked the Church's stance on moral issues, but couldn't quite find anything else to say about it. My reasons for my stance on the acceptance of buggers and buggery are far more deeply philosophical than religious, and based on what I think is a good and fairly deep grasp of history; real history as opposed to the ahistorical revisionist relativism that semi-educated teachers fill kid's heads with in highschool these days. This forum reeks of it on some days when the wing is blowing from the left.

[Figleaf]

The questions need to be along the lines of how will fundamentally changing the institution of marriage affect society in 30 or 40 years.

Well, alright then ... this is a discussion I've asked SSM opponents to enter for a long time now.

How will the change to SSM affect society? If you forsee a danger, we need to understand what it is. Just so you know, I start from a liberal standpoint (what isn't harmful to society, society should not prohibit).

[Figleaf]

My reasons for my stance on the acceptance of buggers and buggery are far more deeply philosophical than religious, and based on what I think is a good and fairly deep grasp of history; real history as opposed to the ahistorical revisionist relativism that semi-educated teachers fill kid's heads with in highschool these days. This forum reeks of it on some days when the wing is blowing from the left.

Earlier I asked you "Put another way, this suggests you feel a moral obligation to refuse equal protection of the law to homosexuals. Can you expand upon the source and scope of this 'morality'?" and I guess the above quote sort of begins to address that, but I remain curious in some respects.

What philosophical and historical ruminations, asssessments and conclussions, specifically, inform your views on homosexuality? I don't ask idly -- if your preferences are to be taken up by others and brought into public policy fruition, a fulsome analysis will be instrumental.

[marcinmoka]

I mean, I too consider myself rather proficient in history, and I was taught it in a different manner than most of my peers, I no doubt have a different view. However, I am very curious, as to what specific historical events and tendencies you refer :

and based on what I think is a good and fairly deep grasp of history; real history as opposed to the ahistorical revisionist relativism that semi-educated teachers fill kid's heads with in highschool these days.

[sharkman]

You might as well ask, how does a guy murdering his wife affect MY marriage, and my children's upbringing

It does, because it frightens me. It will create tension and people might change their habits. If someone is WILLING to murder someone else, it makes me worried about the safety of my own wife and children.

I don't really see any parallels between gay marriage and murder.

The questions need to be along the lines of how will fundamentally changing the institution of marriage affect society in 30 or 40 years.

My guess........Dj's will be just as bad, Dresses will be just as expansive (adjusted for inflation of course), people will get just as drunk, but other than that, it won't. If 10% of people are gay today, than I think it's safe to assume that 10% of people will be gay tomorrow, or next year, or in 30 years.

I'm glad you see no parallels between gay marriage and murder because there are none and I wasn't claiming any.

You suggest that some half wit who at random murders his wife(it could be on the other side of the country) affects you, but changing the institution of marriage will not affect society over a span of 30 years. If you are affected by random murders, then you must be very frightened indeed since murders occur quite often.

The reason most can't see that changing the institution of marriage will have an affect on our society is because very few can actually analyze the effects of something over a 30 year span. To talk about it in terms of clothing costs and levels of drunkeness doesn't prove anything.

[marcinmoka]

I guess I forgot to elucidate on a few points. With respect to the traditional religious nature of marriage, yes, it will change. Without a doubt. Personally, I think that may be a good thing.

Marriage in this sense is not important to me, at all. It's the concept with a goal of establishing a parental, mutually dependent unit (of two people) generally for the purposes of raising children. The cake, and the ceremony and all the associated hoop-la are just secondary. If a couple stays together through marriage, or a common-law bond, in my books, it's all the same, as long as they stay together and create the environment required to ensure the safety of offspring. (And while children in single parent homes have often turned out fine...at least I assume I did...two parents are still often the preferable option).

While it is true that the constituents of a gay couple cannot procreate with one another, this can also be said of many heterosexual couples.

Furthermore, unplanned pregnancies (sadly) happen all the time, and the mother cannot, and in some cases, should not raise a child. Let the capable, responsible infertile couples (gay or straight) thus be the means to raise the children who would otherwise be lacking this stability. Id much prefer a child to grow up with gay parents than a single crack head parent.

Keep in mind, marriage has evolved big time. If you really want to hold on to traditional marriage, which period of time are we supposed to refer to? Remember, a century ago women were still a man's property, and marriage was simply a contract between the groom and brides father. I got a wife, and he got a few goats!

If I were to adopt that definition of traditional marriage, I'm sure my girl's father would be quite baffled one day at work, when a man from UPS delivers 3 pigs, 2 goats and 8 chickens to his Manhattan office in exchange for his daughter.

Et voila....my spiel.

[cybercoma]

Homosexuals are people just like everyone else. They have the same thoughts and feelings as other people.

Any objections to homosexuality is result of people's superstitious belief in an invisible sky fairy that will punish them in the equally superstitious afterlife.

Homosexuality is as much an anomaly as the sun rising and falling and the tides coming in and going out.

[newbie]

.

What philosophical and historical ruminations, asssessments and conclussions, specifically, inform your views on homosexuality? I don't ask idly -- if your preferences are to be taken up by others and brought into public policy fruition, a fulsome analysis will be instrumental.

: )

[Rue]

Figleaf your obsession with reporting people is sad. I get the subjective impression you would love to live in a police state reporting everyone. Its neighbours like you that made the Gestapo what it is by reporting everyone. Can you not stop with the obsession about reporting and let freedom of speech follow its course? If you disagree with someone just ignore it. Stop trying to place these people in prison camps or having them arrested. I am sorry but you sound like a Hitler Youth reporting his parents for suspect political behaviour. Come on. Enough. Let the dissent flow. Ignore what you disagree with. You invite even more dissent with your rigid " am going to report you reponse to anyone that annoys you. Lighten up. Reported! AS FOR ALL THIS CONTINUED broohahaha about gay people have decided to come out. I am a lesbian. I love women. I have known it since I was a child. Ever since I saw women when I was young. As a I grew older I knew I was a lesbian. I walk funny.

[M.Dancer]

You wear sensible shoes? Your wardrobe consists of casual and formal lumberjack shirts?

[Rue]

In world war two the Gestapo depended on its citizens to report each other. Then of course we had the Hitler Youth group teaching its children to report their parents.

I am always amazed at the people who write in and threaten to report others. To me they remind me of the kind of people that make police states possible. They thrive on thinking they know what is right and wrong and have the right to lecture others and get them arrested and punished.

To me the kind of person who needs to report others is a facist, or totalitarian, pure and simple. Me, I do not pee my panties and want someone censored because they disagree with me. I prefer to debate them or simply walk away-its my choice. I also think to be a moderator with all this "reported!" stuff can't be easy. I mean how many times does one tell someone to change their diaper?

I also remember the kind of kids at school growing up always reporting their fellow students to the teacher. Guess some of them never lose their "reporting" skills and remind me why spit balls were invented.

That said in between the "reporting to the Gestapo to get people sent away" how about we concentrate on the topic and that is, people who don't like gays may be struggling with latent homo-sexual feelings within themselves that they can't deal with and this post has gone on far too long and I like gay people and they can live in my neighbourhood!

Now I can't be reported because my comments are not specific to anyone ahahahahahahahah. Now report that in yer face.

[sharkman]

In world war two the Gestapo depended on its citizens to report each other. Then of course we had the Hitler Youth group teaching its children to report their parents.

I am always amazed at the people who write in and threaten to report others. To me they remind me of the kind of people that make police states possible. They thrive on thinking they know what is right and wrong and have the right to lecture others and get them arrested and punished.

To me the kind of person who needs to report others is a facist, or totalitarian, pure and simple. Me, I do not pee my panties and want someone censored because they disagree with me. I prefer to debate them or simply walk away-its my choice. I also think to be a moderator with all this "reported!" stuff can't be easy. I mean how many times does one tell someone to change their diaper?

I also remember the kind of kids at school growing up always reporting their fellow students to the teacher. Guess some of them never lose their "reporting" skills and remind me why spit balls were invented.

That said in between the "reporting to the Gestapo to get people sent away" how about we concentrate on the topic and that is, people who don't like gays may be struggling with latent homo-sexual feelings within themselves that they can't deal with and this post has gone on far too long and I like gay people and they can live in my neighbourhood!

Now I can't be reported because my comments are not specific to anyone ahahahahahahahah. Now report that in yer face.

Rue, you sound like a complicated persn and I like that in people. Or maybe it's just your impatience with figleaf.

[Figleaf]

Figleaf your obsession with reporting people is sad. I get the subjective impression you would love to live in a police state reporting everyone. Its neighbours like you that made the Gestapo what it is by reporting everyone. Can you not stop with the obsession about reporting and let freedom of speech follow its course?

Old news, Ruester! Greg in his wisdom has asked me not to tell people when I report them, so now it's all got to be done secretly, like the Stasi of East Germany.

If you disagree with someone just ignore it.

I've discussed this at lenght with other posters. I report people for rule violations, not for disagreements. And I am going to continue to report rule violations. The rules exist for a reason. I don't break them and I see no reason to silently tolerate others breaking them.

I am sorry but you sound like a Hitler Youth reporting his parents for suspect political behaviour.

I hope you remember this offensive comment, when I decide to compare you to the Nazis.

[Figleaf]

The reason most can't see that changing the institution of marriage will have an affect on our society is because very few can actually analyze the effects of something over a 30 year span. To talk about it in terms of clothing costs and levels of drunkeness doesn't prove anything.

Were you going to get around to answering my question about this in post #634? To refresh your memory, I asked: "How will the change to SSM affect society? If you forsee a danger, we need to understand what it is. Just so you know, I start from a liberal standpoint (what isn't harmful to society, society should not prohibit)."

[sharkman]

The reason most can't see that changing the institution of marriage will have an affect on our society is because very few can actually analyze the effects of something over a 30 year span. To talk about it in terms of clothing costs and levels of drunkeness doesn't prove anything.

Were you going to get around to answering my question about this in post #634? To refresh your memory, I asked: "How will the change to SSM affect society? If you forsee a danger, we need to understand what it is. Just so you know, I start from a liberal standpoint (what isn't harmful to society, society should not prohibit)."

No, you argue for the sake of out-arguing the other person, not analyzing to see who might have some common ground. Do you ever wonder why you draw the ire of so many people on this forum? You may not mean to, but you come off sounding like a know-it-all. I am not interested in trying to debate something with somebody who thinks they know it all.

[Figleaf]

No, you argue for the sake of out-arguing the other person, not analyzing to see who might have some common ground.

I discuss to seek truth, where the discussion reveals error, I confront it.

Do you ever wonder why you draw the ire of so many people on this forum?

No, it's pretty obvious ... so many people on this forum cannot stand to have their notions held up to scrutiny.

You may not mean to, but you come off sounding like a know-it-all.

It's hard not to 'sound like a know it all' when you know a lot more than others. Yes, I'm aware that sounds arrogant, but ... oh well.

I am not interested in trying to debate something with somebody who thinks they know it all.

Since you made an assertion about the potential dangers of SSM 30 years down the line, and since you now won't support it with any sort of content, I am assuming you are unable to support it (your cheap dodge and malicious ad hominem notwithstanding).

[Black Dog]

Every advance homosexuals attempt to make into hegemonic society is accompanied by much ballyhoo about "tolerance", when in fact every issue since the decriminalization of homosexuality is really about "acceptance", which is an entirely different thing.

For example? Gay marriage? Legal recognition of same sex couples? I mean, surely, if this list is so voluminous, you could bother naming some of these issues?

[Kapitän Rotbart]

I'll admit I didn't read all the posts (too many to read), but I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to discuss this topic on this active thread.

Homosexuality was once diagnosed as a dysfunction. I wouldn't go to the extent of calling it a dysfunction, but it is a disorder. Intercourse is designed for procreation, and homosexual intercourse cut off that possibility.

Is homosexuality an anomaly? It's not quite normal. The 10%er is a big lie, check this out:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php

1-2% is insignificant in terms of statistics where 5% is most often used as a level of significance (1% is rarely used as Level of Significance, and probably never used for measuring human population... normally for tests on drugs/medicine... etc.). Because the proportion of gays is insignificant, I am not wrong for assuming that one is straight. I hate it when gays say that we shouldn't assume that people are straight. It makes sense that being sensitive to people of a fringe group not be a priority for me. If I find out that one is gay, that's different, but unless I know that one is gay, I will assume that they're straight. There are greater incentives for me to be sensitive to people of different religions/beliefs than sexual orientation, because at least the proportion of those practicing religions other than Christianity in Canada is significant.

As for gay marriage, I'm against the gov't managing marriage licences as a whole. I think the gov't should recognize "single" and "civil union". There should be no need for a licence, but rather people should have the freedom to register under either status and be taxed accordingly and treated accordingly for the purpose of customs and immigration. Religious institutions should manage their own marriage licences and determine which ones they recognize from other institutions. For instance, if a muslim couple is married under Islam, then joins a Christian church, it is up to the Christian church on wheather or not their Muslim marriage certificate is recognized and it's also up to them how the marriage within that church be validated. That way, if the Anglican church chooses to marry gays, then the Catholic church could choose to not recognize Anglican marriages if they choose.

The only argument thrown against my utopic proposition is that "people get married by the state just for the sake of getting married". I find it a poor argument, because atheists (or people of any Faith) could just consider themselves married if they want to, have a celebration if they want to, then register as a civil union with the gov't if they want to. Would be the ideal in my opinion, because then gay marriage would not be an issue. The gov't would no longer licence marriage, therefore it would be the gays vs. each institution, and not vs. the gov't. That way it's up to the individual on whether they belong to a certain Faith or not, and it's their choice whether they want to be part of a Faith that approves of gay marriage or not.

As for other rights, adoption is still an issue. There are many people I'd prefer to stop from adopting. I'd want to stop those who consume tobacco, who excessively consume alcohol, who consume any street side pharmaceuticals from adopting because of their unhealthy life-style and poor example towards the adopted child. I'd stop gays of adopting on the basis that they are in a relation that could never result in natural procreation and I'd give preference to couples identified as civil unions (married or not, beause as mentioned earlier I don't want the gov't putting its nose where it doesn't belong) over single people as prospective adoptive parents.

Not catering to the gays is nothing like Nazi Germany who would have them killed. That goes against one's civil rights.