State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma.
The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it's an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it's what Oklahomans want.
"[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all," Turner said.
Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.
"Would it be realistic for the State of Oklahoma to say, ‘We're not going to do marriage period,'" asked News 9's Michael Konopasek.
"That would definitely be a realistic opportunity, and it's something that would be part of the discussion," Turner answered.
Such a discussion will be made possible by a current shell bill -- something that can be changed at almost any time to react to upcoming rulings on Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban.
"I think that, especially with issues like this, [these lawmakers are] out of touch with most Oklahomans," said Ryan Kiesel, ACLU Oklahoma executive detector.
Kiesel says prohibiting all marriage is new territory. In fact, the ACLU was unable to find an example of where a state has ever tried to ban all marriage. Kiesel believes the entire idea just boils down to politics.
"Moving forward I think we'll see less efforts like this," Kiesel said.
Turner admits his idea makes a lot of people uncomfortable. He also says, "I accept that." Turner plans to wait until the federal appeals process plays out. The fight over Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage will now head to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver
I need to get out of this fething state. Grant me asylum Frazzled!
That sounds complitely stupid. If you want to hear my opinion no private organisation should be forced to do something against their principles, example chruches forced to do gay marriages. That enforcement is as silly as forcing a Hindu to eat beef.
Because the state, on both the federal and state level, has created a vested interest in people getting married and has passed numerous laws that benefit only married couples. Paired with the fact that private companies provide numerous benefits to legally married couples it is a pretty big deal when marriage is restricted by the state.
That's why the whole "why should states be in the business of sanctioning marriage to begin with" argument is stupid, because they made it their business when they decided that married people get certain benefits that unmarried people don't.
I have said before, Why is marriage such a big deal?
I think is more of a principal, not a practical problem. Same can be thought on some buddhist not eating meat at all. It is a tradition that people like to keep.
What this got me thinking is that don't you americans have non religious marriage? Atleast where I come from, Finland you can marry somebody non-religiously. It gives all the benefits of real marriage and no private organisation is forced to act against its will.
It's creative. Stupid, but creative. B for effort.
Sienisoturi wrote: What this got me thinking is that don't you americans have non religious marriage? Atleast where I come from, Finland you can marry somebody non-religiously. It gives all the benefits of real marriage and no private organisation is forced to act against its will.
We do. You can be married by the state and be legally married. All religious marriages are legal marriages as well (provided they fill out the right documents), and all legal marriages have conferred on them the benefits of marriage the state grants (usually in relation to taxes). Basically, if people wanted to, they can go down to their local government building (I forget which specific building) and get a marriage license, and forego the whole big wedding ceremony thing.
Some Oklahoma politicians seem to be trying to do away with legal marriage altogether, which would mean people could be married religiously but that it wouldn't be recognized by the state for tax purposes and the like.
DogofWar1 wrote: It's creative. Stupid, but creative. B for effort.
Sienisoturi wrote: What this got me thinking is that don't you americans have non religious marriage? Atleast where I come from, Finland you can marry somebody non-religiously. It gives all the benefits of real marriage and no private organisation is forced to act against its will.
We do. You can be married by the state and be legally married. All religious marriages are legal marriages as well (provided they fill out the right documents), and all legal marriages have conferred on them the benefits of marriage the state grants (usually in relation to taxes). Basically, if people wanted to, they can go down to their local government building (I forget which specific building) and get a marriage license, and forego the whole big wedding ceremony thing.
Some Oklahoma politicians seem to be trying to do away with legal marriage altogether, which would mean people could be married religiously but that it wouldn't be recognized by the state for tax purposes and the like.
So are they exactly trying to ban gays the religious or all of the marriages?
I have said before, Why is marriage such a big deal?
Because Sex.
Spoiler:
And money too.
Anyone who has lived in the South can tell you that while this guy is close, he's missing why our divorce rate is so high. Teens don't get married too "early" because they want to bang (I use quotation marks because my parents married when they were 19 and have been happily married for almost 30 years) Usually if they're getting married "early" it's because they already had sex and a baby is on the way. AKA the good ol' "Shotgun wedding". That's when the societal pressures of living in a conservative community come in, namely the fact that parents who don't get married soon after they find out their kid is on the way get a lot of crap from the local community. Many of these shotgun wedding marriages don't last long for various reasons, and then when they break up, both people tend to make more stupid choices and the cycle starts anew. It's not uncommon to meet guys who have divorced 2 or 3 times and have a child with each woman.
That is a major contribution to why our divorce rate is high. In the cities, most of the people are as "liberal" as you would find elsewhere, so divorce tends to happen for all the normal reasons it does elsewhere. It's just that we have that extra source of divorce rates from the country that pushes ours higher.
The whole "wait till marriage" thing is not nearly as established as people around here like to think it is. I would put good money that maybe 1 out of 4 girls at best hang onto this belief after highschool tops, probably less. I've known a few, but they tend to be the exception, not the rule. And they're definitely not the kind of woman that would get married at 20 just so they can finally have sex.
Also, did anyone else find that guy's voice really insufferable? I have no idea why but it annoyed me to no end, I could barely watch the video.
On Topic: Gay marriage is going to be fought tooth and nail by the conservative community up until the very end, and probably for a long while after it passes. I have no idea why, but there are people who are very serious about this. I've had good friends who said essentially "I would never allow it to pass, the very idea that gays could marry would cheapen the meaning of my marriage." Similar uproar happened when homosexual children were allowed to join the boyscouts. These are otherwise perfectly good, kind people, but this topic just eats at them to no end. You really have to see it in person to believe it.
I can only imagine we'll see more and more outrageous attempts to block the passing of gay marriage laws in the future. As more states pass laws allowing it, the opposition will only increase in the states that haven't as states will divide down party lines. This "total marriage ban" is just the start of it.
Gay people in Oklahoma will simply go and marry in the next state to get the certificate.
How does he propose to administer all the laws surrounding marriage without recording marriages? Will he abolish every piece of legislation that touches on marriage?
d-usa wrote: Are you in favor of repealing all tax benefits,
Yes.
military survivor benefits to spouses,
You can designate whoever you want on the form.
inheritance laws, etc etc etc?
Write a will.
Writing a will doesn't change estate laws.
If they ever pull off a bone headed move like that they will at least realize exactly what benefits people had when they were married and why it is such a big deal that these benefits are withheld from a select group of people.
If they ever pull off a bone headed move like that they will at least realize exactly what benefits people had when they were married and why it is such a big deal that these benefits are withheld from a select group of people.
And you suck at ignoring people again...
Writing a will doesn't need to change estate laws to work for non-married couples.
And the only marriage benefits I can think of that you can't duplicate through other means are narrow and primarily financial. Since you're in the "everyone should be as poor as me!" camp, I don't know why you'd object to fewer tax breaks.
d-usa wrote: Are you in favor of repealing all tax benefits,
Yes.
military survivor benefits to spouses,
You can designate whoever you want on the form.
inheritance laws, etc etc etc?
Write a will.
I had to show this post just so I could say: I agree entirely.
The state has no business solemnizing marriages. It is a private covenant between two people and their house of worship or secular equivalent. Marriage to a consenting adult is, IMO a human right the state has no authority to either convey or deny.
If they ever pull off a bone headed move like that they will at least realize exactly what benefits people had when they were married and why it is such a big deal that these benefits are withheld from a select group of people.
And you suck at ignoring people again...
Writing a will doesn't need to change estate laws to work for non-married couples.
And the only marriage benefits I can think of that you can't duplicate through other means are narrow and primarily financial.
So all the people who have learned the hard way that "domestic partnerships" don't just impact you in primarily financial ways are just not smart enough to figure it out?
Since you're in the "everyone should be as poor as me!" camp, I don't know why you'd object to fewer tax breaks.
I see you are still assigning imaginary arguments to people. Keep on shining bright you diamond.
The state has no business solemnizing marriages. It is a private covenant between two people and their house of worship or secular equivalent. Marriage to a consenting adult is, IMO a human right the state has no authority to either convey or deny.
The state created the need to convey a legal status like marriage to people when they passed legislation that gave benefits to people who were married though.
If there was no benefits, legal or societal, then there wouldn't be a need to regulate it to begin with. It's a bed that the government made themselves really.
Sienisoturi wrote: What this got me thinking is that don't you americans have non religious marriage? Atleast where I come from, Finland you can marry somebody non-religiously. It gives all the benefits of real marriage and no private organisation is forced to act against its will.
Where do you get your ideas about America?
Legalizing gay marriage does not mean that ANY private organization is forced to perform the ritual. It means that the state recognizes gay couples who go through with the legal rigamarole. The gay couple can have any willing party perform the wedding. (I actually officiated my sister-in-law's wedding. All I had to do was fill out a form online to get ordained and then fill out some paperwork.) I repeat, legalizing gay marriage does not result in forced gay marriages. There is no organ of state pressed against the head of any minister.
d-usa wrote: I would imagine that divorce laws would be the biggest headache to deal with if that were to happen...
How so? I'm not seeing the complication (I must be missing something). It's just contract law. The fundamental idea isn't different, just two names on some forms dividing assets - how would that change?
d-usa wrote: I would imagine that divorce laws would be the biggest headache to deal with if that were to happen...
How so? I'm not seeing the complication (I must be missing something). It's just contract law. The fundamental idea isn't different, just two names on some forms dividing assets - how would that change?
Well, right now it's the state setting a lot of the rules on divorces (such as waiting periods) and the state deciding on how to divide things and settling custody issues and spousal support and such. If the state is no longer in charge of marriages would the state then be completely removed from divorces as well? Would you suggest a state-mandated minimum "marriage contract" or no mandated protection for spouses at all? Basically "if you didn't do a prenup then you can simply go your separate ways at any point" kind of situation? Who gets the kids in those situations? Those are the kind of things that seem like they could get complicated (not that they are not complicated now).
Also, how do you feel about current marriages. Do all current marriages simple become no longer recognized by the state and we repeal all laws dealing with marriage, or would you favor some sort of grandfather clause on currently recognized unions?
It would also be interesting to see how the private sector would handle this. This probably wouldn't be a legal issue, but let's look at something like health insurance. Currently you can get "you + spouse" health insurance, how do you think the private sector would handle this if there is no longer a set legal definition of spouse? Would they accept anybody that brings a random piece of paper from somebody saying "I married them"? What if they married 5 other people, would they all get coverage under a health insurance plan?
Sienisoturi wrote: That sounds complitely stupid. If you want to hear my opinion no private organisation should be forced to do something against their principles, example chruches forced to do gay marriages. That enforcement is as silly as forcing a Hindu to eat beef.
"I'm sorry sir, we can't serve you as you are the wrong colour"...
Sienisoturi wrote: That sounds complitely stupid. If you want to hear my opinion no private organisation should be forced to do something against their principles, example chruches forced to do gay marriages. That enforcement is as silly as forcing a Hindu to eat beef.
"I'm sorry sir, we can't serve you as you are the wrong colour"...
Which is the core issue here, really. The tenets of some religions, due to archaic beliefs, would be violated because someone wants to be contractually bonded to someone with similar physiology. On the other hand, there's alternatives, like another church or a courthouse wedding. At the same time, that's not good enough because of the fact that "homosexuality is natural" and "it's discrimination(one to eight exclamation points)".
Ultimately,who do you compel to operate against their core being, the clergyman who thinks you're fundamentally undermining his faith, or the people who demand their services? Much as I hate religion, I gotta say that no one should be forced to perform an act they don't agree with, so I gotta side with the priest.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Were I a satanist, or even an atheist (not much of a stretch) and I approached a priest letting him know full well my stance, but demanding his service, would you be so appalled that he refused me the ceremony?
I just had three friends transfer to school in OK. They are foreign. I really hope the bigotry doesn't extend to them, but I'm afraid it will. What a sorry state of affairs.
Not going to happen. Imagine the loss of funds from marriage fee's? Government got into it because "Hey, they need a marriage license to get married.......Hundred dollars!" but I do not care at all as long as no "normal" marriage or same sex marriage does not get an advantage over one another.
Prove there is a god, or even that anything at all you believe is true, and I might grant there is a reason for treating certain groups as subhuman, even if I did not agree with it (even if god existed, I still don't think that is a great reason to be a horrible human being).
As an atheist and being straight and already married, I very much doubt I will be in a position to require a religious wedding but I am given to understand that even with the word of god apparently compelling you to be a biggot, there are some good human beings who will perform religious weddings for people who commit the sin of loving the wrong kind of person... you know, those with the wrong skin colour ir gender...
d-usa wrote: Are you in favor of repealing all tax benefits,
Yes.
military survivor benefits to spouses,
You can designate whoever you want on the form.
inheritance laws, etc etc etc?
Write a will.
I had to show this post just so I could say: I agree entirely.
The state has no business solemnizing marriages. It is a private covenant between two people and their house of worship or secular equivalent. Marriage to a consenting adult is, IMO a human right the state has no authority to either convey or deny.
That's the difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage.
The state whether solemnizing marriages or not would still need to record them, so you would have to sign some forms and get a certificate showing you were married. That is the way marriage actually is done in some countries, certainly in Japan at any rate. You get married any way you like, then you go to the register office and fill in the forms. Then you are married. If you don't fill in the forms you aren't married, no matter how many religious ceremonies you did.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's the difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage.
The state whether solemnizing marriages or not would still need to record them, so you would have to sign some forms and get a certificate showing you were married. That is the way marriage actually is done in some countries, certainly in Japan at any rate. You get married any way you like, then you go to the register office and fill in the forms. Then you are married. If you don't fill in the forms you aren't married, no matter how many religious ceremonies you did.
IDK about Oklahoma.
That's how it's done in the States as well.
"Civil marriage" is basically just a shorthand way of entering into a bunch of different contracts, and of course a couple tax breaks.
The state can get out of that business very easily.
Seaward wrote: The state can get out of that business very easily.
Not really. You could duplicate most of the contract aspects of marriage with private contracts, but then you have the chaos of millions of slightly different marriage contracts to deal with. The only people who win in that situation are the lawyers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sienisoturi wrote: That sounds complitely stupid. If you want to hear my opinion no private organisation should be forced to do something against their principles, example chruches forced to do gay marriages. That enforcement is as silly as forcing a Hindu to eat beef.
No, it's not even close to the same. A religious official performing a (legal) marriage is acting as a representative of the government, and the government has every right to require you to meet certain standards (like marrying everyone who wishes to get married) before granting you that power. The equivalent of forcing a Hindu to eat beef would be forcing a church to perform a wedding ceremony that had no legal status for a couple they don't wish to marry. So sure, insist on your right to refuse wedding services to people you don't like, you just won't get the authority to make those marriages have any legal value.
Sienisoturi wrote: That sounds complitely stupid. If you want to hear my opinion no private organisation should be forced to do something against their principles, example chruches forced to do gay marriages. That enforcement is as silly as forcing a Hindu to eat beef.
"I'm sorry sir, we can't serve you as you are the wrong colour"...
This a bit of a stramanshis argument (see the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), because organisations who's main principles include rasism should be rather banned.
SilverMK2 wrote:Prove there is a god, or even that anything at all you believe is true, and I might grant there is a reason for treating certain groups as subhuman, even if I did not agree with it (even if god existed, I still don't think that is a great reason to be a horrible human being).
As an atheist and being straight and already married, I very much doubt I will be in a position to require a religious wedding but I am given to understand that even with the word of god apparently compelling you to be a biggot, there are some good human beings who will perform religious weddings for people who commit the sin of loving the wrong kind of person... you know, those with the wrong skin colour ir gender...
Now, I do not think proving the exsistence of God is at all relevant to this discussion.
Of course now we get to the is homosexuality disease or not discussion. Oh, well I would say it is a mental disorder like depression. I think that it is a normal disese so having it does not make you a bad person or anything to be punished. The reason I believe it is a disease is that that it prevents the natural chance of getting a child. Of course everybody is gonna pull the "it does not need to be natural", but let me give another example: Is it a disease if a person can't eat oraly but has to be fed to the vein? I also think it is silly that the discussion has mostly two sides arguing: side one: homosexuality should be emphasised, side two: homosexuals are perverts and need to be punished. Now, I do not belong to eather side but I think homosexuality should be tried to be cured by scientisific methods, not by some pseudo science.
I also do not believe in being horrible person to gays as I said I only wish for them to be cured or let live in piece if there is no cure. But for the wedding thing I still say that the church should have the power to choose do they want gay marriages or not. Also for priests doing at the moment gay marriages I find rather silly because it is against the principles of the church. These coversations tend to center around christianity but lets have another example: do you think that forcing a muslim to eat pork would be reasonable?
And for a final point where have you gotten the idea that religious people are bad or discriminatory. Even the bible says "love each other" and something along the lines "may the sinles cast the first stone".
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS when I am referring to marriage I mean the religious ritual, I am sorry for any misconvinience, because the non religious marriage is referred in my mother tong a maistrate.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PPS although my other opinions, I support gays to have the right to non religious marriage.
It really isn't, given the past history of racism and segregation in the US.
Oh, well I would say it is a mental disorder like depression.
Then you would be a bigot.
The reason I believe it is a disease is that that it prevents the natural chance of getting a child.
So do a lot of other things. Sex without the (significant) possibility of having a (non-aborted) child is awesome, and not limited to gay people.
Is it a disease if a person can't eat oraly but has to be fed to the vein?
Do you really not see any difference between having kids, something that is completely optional, and being able to meet basic requirements for continued life? Or do you consider it a disease if someone decides they don't want kids, or can't find anyone willing to have kids with them?
Now, I do not belong to eather side but I think homosexuality should be tried to be cured by scientisific methods, not by some pseudo science.
Curing homosexuality makes about as much sense as curing black people. And yes, you're just as bad a person as someone who proposes the latter.
Also for priests doing at the moment gay marriages I find rather silly because it is against the principles of the church. These coversations tend to center around christianity but lets have another example: do you think that forcing a muslim to eat pork would be reasonable?
As previously stated, your analogy doesn't work. Performing state-recognized marriages is acting as a representative of the government, not just having a religious ceremony. If you want the ability to decide who you're going to offer that service to then you should have to forfeit the "officialness" of your marriages, and leave them with no more meaning than the "marriage" I just performed between my two tank models.
And for a final point where have you gotten the idea that religious people are bad or discriminatory.
Probably from the vast amounts of religiously-motivated discrimination in the US.
You realise of course that there were plenty of religious arguments about equality of the races, especially in America right? And there were lots of places that refused to serve peple based on race, because of "deeply held principles". Thankfully the government stepped in and told people to stop being so bloody stupid and most people got on with being a little less horrible to one another because of some totally incorrect sentiments.
I would suggest you go and read the link you provided and bring yourself up to speed on what a strawman actually is.
Now, I do not think proving the exsistence of God is at all relevant to this discussion.
If you want to claim your arguments are valid, you need to prove the validity of your argument.
Of course now we get to the is homosexuality disease or not discussion.
Erm... what?
Oh, well I would say it is a mental disorder like depression.
It is a "disorder" in the sense that it is not the majority state of existance, however it is very far from a medical disorder.
I think that it is a normal disese so having it does not make you a bad person or anything to be punished.
So, ignoring the sentiment of it being a disease, you suggest that homosexuality is a part of the normal spectrum of humanity and there is nothing wrong with it?
The reason I believe it is a disease is that that it prevents the natural chance of getting a child.
...
Perhaps you are not quite aware of what a disease actually is. Does "being a priest" suddenly become a disease in some religions since they choose not to have sex with anyone (well...)?
Of course everybody is gonna pull the "it does not need to be natural", but let me give another example: Is it a disease if a person can't eat oraly but has to be fed to the vein?
I again advise you to go and look up what the word disease actually means.
I also think it is silly that the discussion has mostly two sides arguing: side one: homosexuality should be emphasised, side two: homosexuals are perverts and need to be punished.
Erm... I am pretty sure there is no side trying to emphasise homosexuality. Promote equality? Certainly.
Now, I do not belong to eather side but I think homosexuality should be tried to be cured by scientisific methods,
So, earlier you suggest that homosexuality is a normal part of the human makeup, but now suggest that it needs to be "cured".
My favorite colour is blue, do I need to be cured of this because I should like red?
not by some pseudo science.
Speaking of which... perhaps you might want to go away and read up on what you are actually talking about, and actualy look at some scientifically valid and peer reviewed work.
I also do not believe in being horrible person to gays as I said I only wish for them to be cured or let live in piece if there is no cure.
Again, go and read up on what homosexuality actually is...
But for the wedding thing I still say that the church should have the power to choose do they want gay marriages or not.
So, we can go back to refusing to marry people of different races too? How about refusing to marry people who support the wrong political party?
Yay!
Also for priests doing at the moment gay marriages I find rather silly because it is against the principles of the church.
Clearly they don't think so.
These coversations tend to center around christianity but lets have another example: do you think that forcing a muslim to eat pork would be reasonable?
There is not really an equivilance here. There is no legal issue surrounding what meat you can or cannot consume, nor any rights etc attached to the meats you eat.
And for a final point where have you gotten the idea that religious people are bad or discriminatory. Even the bible says "love each other" and something along the lines "may the sinles cast the first stone".
And yet you seem to find it fine that they block people who love one another getting married, either specifically in the religious sense, or married at all in the eyes of the law. And you seem to be suggesting that homosexuals need to be cured of their "disease". Not very loving.
PPS although my other opinions, I support gays to have the right to non religious marriage.
So, why can't they have a religious marriage as well?
Sienisoturi wrote: I do not think that curing homosexuality is pseudo science if it is done according to the ethics of doctors. Although I know that at the moment there are not any serious ways to cure it, but I think they should research for that cure. For the thing that homosexuality is a disease I already explained.
The concept that homosexuality is something that needs to be "cured" is the pseudoscience here. Although there is no arguing that a lot of attempts to "cure" homosexuality are entirely without any founding in scientific or medical principle and certainly there is no question that forcing people to undergo a cure (especially to something that does not need curing) goes against all ethical considerations of medicine.
Sienisoturi wrote: I do not think that curing homosexuality is pseudo science if it is done according to the ethics of doctors. Although I know that at the moment there are not any serious ways to cure it, but I think they should research for that cure. For the thing that homosexuality is a disease I already explained.
The concept that homosexuality is something that needs to be "cured" is the pseudoscience here. Although there is no arguing that a lot of attempts to "cure" homosexuality are entirely without any founding in scientific or medical principle and certainly there is no question that forcing people to undergo a cure (especially to something that does not need curing) goes against all ethical considerations of medicine.
I believe homosexuality is a disease due to the reasons I already explained.
I do not think that curing homosexuality is pseudo science if it is done according to the ethics of doctors. Although I know that at the moment there are not any serious ways to cure it, but I think they should research for that cure. For the thing that homosexuality is a disease I already explained.
It really isn't, given the past history of racism and segregation in the US.
Don't you think that referring to race when we are talking about homosexuality is a strawman.
Oh, well I would say it is a mental disorder like depression.
Then you would be a bigot.
I am not familiar with the word bigot but to my knowlege it is amock name for conservatives, and I do not think that mocking brings this discussion forward at all.
The reason I believe it is a disease is that that it prevents the natural chance of getting a child.
So do a lot of other things. Sex without the (significant) possibility of having a (non-aborted) child is awesome, and not limited to gay people.
True but the big differencre here is that straight people have the chance and will probably still at some point have children.
Is it a disease if a person can't eat oraly but has to be fed to the vein?
Do you really not see any difference between having kids, something that is completely optional, and being able to meet basic requirements for continued life? Or do you consider it a disease if someone decides they don't want kids, or can't find anyone willing to have kids with them?
The reason that I see people not having children as a disease is that no specie (except some medusas) can survive without reproduction. I do konsider the choice of not having children as a similie to a disease becasue all healthy humans have the desire to make children. Although this can also be thought as cheating nature which in this case is irresponsible. For the people who have no chance to get children becasue they have no partner I call that unluckines.
Now, I do not belong to eather side but I think homosexuality should be tried to be cured by scientisific methods, not by some pseudo science.
Curing homosexuality makes about as much sense as curing black people. And yes, you're just as bad a person as someone who proposes the latter.
Being black does not in my memory have any negative effects like homosexuality which I already explained before. And if you read my whole post you should also have read the bit where I say that if no serious cure is available gays should be left in peace.
Also for priests doing at the moment gay marriages I find rather silly because it is against the principles of the church. These coversations tend to center around christianity but lets have another example: do you think that forcing a muslim to eat pork would be reasonable?
As previously stated, your analogy doesn't work. Performing state-recognized marriages is acting as a representative of the government, not just having a religious ceremony. If you want the ability to decide who you're going to offer that service to then you should have to forfeit the "officialness" of your marriages, and leave them with no more meaning than the "marriage" I just performed between my two tank models.
In that I meant the religious not the state marriage. Also for this, don't you there have this strickt separation of religion and state so the govermental marriage should not have any religious requirements.
And for a final point where have you gotten the idea that religious people are bad or discriminatory.
Probably from the vast amounts of religiously-motivated discrimination in the US.
I think it is sad if some people use religion as a tool of violence but that does not mean that all religious people are bad.
Sienisoturi wrote: I believe homosexuality is a disease due to the reasons I already explained.
Nothing you said even hinted at a reason for homosexuality being considered a disease. I'm a clinical scientist, I know what a disease is and I know a lot of ways to cure and/or mittigate their effects... if you don't want to go and research the issue yourself at least trust me when I tell you homosexuality is not a disease.
Well the 'homosexuality is a mental disorder' hasn't been accurate according to the DSM since, what, DSM III? II? One of those. It's not a disorder according to any seriously regarded medical or psychological professional. Anyone who says that it is seriously a mental condition loses all credibility in that area for either failing at stats or producing bs papers and should be ranked equivalent to Wakefield (of immunisation article fame) in terms of their contributions to society and general medical knowledge
I believe homosexuality is a disease due to the reasons I already explained.
Sienisoturi wrote: I think homosexuality should be tried to be cured by scientisific methods, not by some pseudo science.
I think Homophobia is a mental disease which should be cured by scientific methods.
I suggest rounding up all homophobic conservative christians, strapping them to a chair and forcing them to watch a marathon of lesbian and gay romance movies. Periodically a lesbian or gay man will plant a big sloppy kiss on them for good measure.
Then when they're cured, they shall be granted honorary membership status of the LGBT community and a lovely rainbow scarf as a memento of their life changing experience.
Sienisoturi wrote: Don't you think that referring to race when we are talking about homosexuality is a strawman.
No, because there are a lot of similarities between the two situations in the US. For example, the arguments against gay marriage are often almost word-for-word copies of past arguments against interracial marriage.
I am not familiar with the word bigot but to my knowlege it is amock name for conservatives, and I do not think that mocking brings this discussion forward at all.
True but the big differencre here is that straight people have the chance and will probably still at some point have children.
The point here is that it isn't a "disease" to have sex that doesn't produce children. Lots of people have lots of sex without any intent to produce children, so why is it only a "disease" when the reason there won't be any children is that the people involved are gay instead of a man and a woman using birth control?
The reason that I see people not having children as a disease is that no specie (except some medusas) can survive without reproduction. I do konsider the choice of not having children as a similie to a disease becasue all healthy humans have the desire to make children. Although this can also be thought as cheating nature which in this case is irresponsible. For the people who have no chance to get children becasue they have no partner I call that unluckines.
Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. People who only want sex with their own gender are a small minority, and their actions have no meaningful impact on the birth rate or our survival as a species. And there are plenty of people who are not gay but still don't want children. In fact, it's a safe bet that the majority of sex is done for reasons other than producing children.
Also, if you want to argue about what is "natural", there are theories that some non-zero rate of homosexuality is actually a desirable attribute in a species, whether because the gay members of the group contribute to supporting offspring without producing any of their own (and therefore have more resources to spend on that support), or because homosexuality is an inevitable side effect of some other valuable attribute.
Being black does not in my memory have any negative effects like homosexuality which I already explained before.
Neither does homosexuality.
In that I meant the religious not the state marriage. Also for this, don't you there have this strickt separation of religion and state so the govermental marriage should not have any religious requirements.
I don't think you understand the situation here. In the US a "religious" marriage has legal status because we grant religious officials (along with other people) the right to perform "state" marriages, including all relevant paperwork. The argument about "forcing" religious officials to perform marriages is about whether or not they have to perform the "state" aspect of a marriage. Whether or not they want to perform a religious ceremony or not is irrelevant, and nobody is arguing that they should be forced to do so.
I think it is sad if some people use religion as a tool of violence but that does not mean that all religious people are bad.
Nobody said that all religious people are bad. But you're blind if you can't see how religiously-motivated discrimination is a relevant issue here.
Homosexuals have no desire to be cured of anything. And if single individuals do, it's probably due to bigotry and peer pressure, which is a completely different thing.
And since homosexuals do not want a 'cure', it would go against the "ethics of doctors" right from the start to even consider searching a "cure". Would you want them to forcefully administer it to people who don't want this "cure"? Not doing stuff like that is kind of the 101 of medical ethics.
Sienisoturi wrote: I believe homosexuality is a disease due to the reasons I already explained.
And you aren't just wrong, you're laughably wrong. You're in the same category as flat-earth theorists and the crazy guy on the corner screaming about mind control in the chemtrails.
Sienisoturi wrote: It is a "disorder" in the sense that it is not the majority state of existance, however it is very far from a medical disorder.
No, that's not what a disorder is. Calling something a "disorder" means that something is bad, not just that it is not standard. And something being fairly rare does not mean that it is a problem that needs to be solved.
I think it is as normal as having a depresson, somehow common but something that needs to be cured.
And this is another laughably wrong analogy. Depression severely hurts quality of life, and very few, if any, depressed people want to be that way or would want to go back if they were cured. Homosexuality, on the other hand, causes no problems and there's no reason to believe that someone who was "cured" of it would indisputably be happier. The only problems gay people suffer from as a result of their sexual preferences are those imposed on them by bigots. You're doing the equivalent of arguing that we should "cure" black people because it sucks to be discriminated against by racists.
Anyhow your favourite colour does not prevent you having children or cause any other problems.
Again with this ridiculous assertion that not having children is automatically a problem, not just a personal choice to be made by each individual person.
Also curing in my mind is very loving. Isn't it a sign that if you are cured the curer likes you.
No, because the person being "cured" doesn't want to be cured. That makes your "cure" nothing more than imposing your own beliefs on someone against their will.
Peregrine wrote: Not really. You could duplicate most of the contract aspects of marriage with private contracts, but then you have the chaos of millions of slightly different marriage contracts to deal with. The only people who win in that situation are the lawyers.
I'd actually be thoroughly in favor of such an a la carte system, but you wouldn't even have to do that. You could always repackage the basics under another name if you really wanted to, and leave the term and all its baggage to the church.
I'd be interested in seeing the results, frankly. I bet a lot of steam would get lost.
Sienisoturi wrote: It is a "disorder" in the sense that it is not the majority state of existance, however it is very far from a medical disorder.
No, that's not what a disorder is. Calling something a "disorder" means that something is bad, not just that it is not standard. And something being fairly rare does not mean that it is a problem that needs to be solved.
He messed up the quotes there - that was actually me saying that. I put disorder in quotation marks as I was using it to mean "not the normal". I was attempting to put a generous spin on the use of the word disorder to describe homosexuality.
It really isn't, given the past history of racism and segregation in the US.
Don't you think that referring to race when we are talking about homosexuality is a strawman.
Considering both are similar cases concerning civil rights and social prejudices, I'd say that's nowhere near a strawman. Sure, they may have been a few differences in how they were treated (we enslaved blacks, but just killed or jailed gays), but how they're being or were deprived of rights for entirely arbitrary reasons is exactly the same.
Oh, well I would say it is a mental disorder like depression.
Then you would be a bigot.
I am not familiar with the word bigot but to my knowlege it is amock name for conservatives, and I do not think that mocking brings this discussion forward at all.
In the context you've given, 'bigot' isn't so much a term meant for patronizing as it would be a very well deserved categorization.
The reason I believe it is a disease is that that it prevents the natural chance of getting a child.
So do a lot of other things. Sex without the (significant) possibility of having a (non-aborted) child is awesome, and not limited to gay people.
True but the big differencre here is that straight people have the chance and will probably still at some point have children.
Gay people have a chance of having children. Most of them have all the working parts. In fact, as the technology involved in fertilization improves and becomes cheaper, the amount of gay couples having children is only going to get cheaper.
Is it a disease if a person can't eat oraly but has to be fed to the vein?
Do you really not see any difference between having kids, something that is completely optional, and being able to meet basic requirements for continued life? Or do you consider it a disease if someone decides they don't want kids, or can't find anyone willing to have kids with them?
The reason that I see people not having children as a disease is that no specie (except some medusas) can survive without reproduction. I do konsider the choice of not having children as a similie to a disease becasue all healthy humans have the desire to make children. Although this can also be thought as cheating nature which in this case is irresponsible. For the people who have no chance to get children becasue they have no partner I call that unluckines.
I consider myself to be reasonably healthy and I don't have a desire to make children. I'm not gay either.
And you actually view not having children as being 'irresponsible to nature?' What the hell does that even mean?
And for a final point where have you gotten the idea that religious people are bad or discriminatory.
Probably from the vast amounts of religiously-motivated discrimination in the US.
I think it is sad if some people use religion as a tool of violence but that does not mean that all religious people are bad.
But that doesn't change the fact that most of the discrimination against homosexuals comes from people brandishing religious texts.
Sienisoturi wrote: I think homosexuality should be tried to be cured by scientisific methods, not by some pseudo science.
You already crossed into pseudo science whenever you started to talk about "curing" homosexuality...
We are doing good on our Bingo since midnight though...
I do not think that curing homosexuality is pseudo science if it is done according to the ethics of doctors.
What the feth does that even mean?
Although I know that at the moment there are not any serious ways to cure it, but I think they should research for that cure. For the thing that homosexuality is a disease I already explained.
And your reasoning and ignorance has proven to be the only thing in need of proper treatment.
You know what, I think I'd better leave this thread before I give my real thoughts on the subject and earn myself a ban.
Sienisoturi, let's just leave it at this: you're the equivalent of the racists who spend vast amounts of time explaining all their elaborate "scientific theories" about how black people aren't really bad or anything, they're just "different" and should be kept in their own separate world away from all the white people. You should be ashamed of your appalling prejudice and laughably bad "theories", and hopefully the response you've encountered here will motivate you to think long and hard about how wrong you are and become a better person. Because if you don't, you really are a horrible person. And that is the very polite version of my opinion of you right now.
Peregrine wrote: You know what, I think I'd better leave this thread before I give my real thoughts on the subject and earn myself a ban.
Sienisoturi, let's just leave it at this: you're the equivalent of the racists who spend vast amounts of time explaining all their elaborate "scientific theories" about how black people aren't really bad or anything, they're just "different" and should be kept in their own separate world away from all the white people. You should be ashamed of your appalling prejudice and laughably bad "theories", and hopefully the response you've encountered here will motivate you to think long and hard about how wrong you are and become a better person. Because if you don't, you really are a horrible person.
You are wrong because you have as much support for your theory as flat-earth theorists and the crazy guy on the corner screaming about mind control in the chemtrails. And you express it about as well. 'I know no one useful thinks it's a disease anymore, but I do because potato' isn't a good argument
The reason I believe it is a disease is that that it prevents the natural chance of getting a child.
So do a lot of other things. Sex without the (significant) possibility of having a (non-aborted) child is awesome, and not limited to gay people.
True but the big differencre here is that straight people have the chance and will probably still at some point have children.
Gay people have a chance of having children. Most of them have all the working parts. In fact, as the technology involved in fertilization improves and becomes cheaper, the amount of gay couples having children is only going to get cheaper.
I have also read about the chance that gays might have the ability to have children. In the case that that comes true there should be no problem anymore.
I have also read about the chance that gays might have the ability to have children. In the case that that comes true there should be no problem anymore.
There is nothing wrong about not having children because we are humans.
Sienisoturi wrote: Although if we leave all this homosexuality thing I would like to hear your opinion on is it a disease if a person can't have children?
No, not being able to have children is not a disease. As has been mentioned there are many diffrent reasons people don't have children; through choice, through an actual disease causing infertility (or other reproductive issues), through not having a partner, or ant number of other different reasons.
Besides which, and it has already been mentioned, homosexual people can and do have children. There is absolutely nothing biological stopping most homosexual people having children (other than if they have an existing fertility issue that is independent of their sexuality).
Well, you can rest easy then, since homosexuals having working sexual organs have existed since the dawn of humanity, and artificially assisted conception has existed for decades.
Of course, it shouldn't be such a leap in logic to understand that the goo of a homosexual man contains just as much potency as that of any other.
A man goes to uni, studies law, and spearheads a groundbreaking case to protect freedom of speech. He meets a woman while at uni, who is studying medicine. She goes on to become a successful general surgeon. They choose not to have kids, despite the fact they get fertility testing and are perfectly capable. Did they do wrong by your books? Are you mandating breeding for all?
Sienisoturi wrote: I have also read about the chance that gays might have the ability to have children. In the case that that comes true there should be no problem anymore.
A gay couple I went to the wedding of are now expecting a baby. So does this mean that homosexuality isn't a disease now? And that they can get "married"?
This thread has gone quite out of hand. I will just put my reasons here to make it clear.
Reason one. Because western nations have poor population growth. I do believe that homosexuals might be a problem becasue of the decrease in the population growth they provide.
Reason two. Gays should have the right to non religious marriage but no private oraganisation should be forced to do gay marriages.
Reason three. In my opinion the ability of not having children is a disease. If science makes a way to allow gays to have childeren I believe that in that case only reason two should stay in effect. This also in my mind is the so called cure for homosexuality which would mean that it is a cured disease.
Also for other people not having children. I believe it should be peoples responsibilty to keep the human species excisting with reproduction.
PS for reason two I mean the ability to have children "inside gay couple".
Sienisoduri, I hate to get into this kind of internet stupidity, but for the record, it could be said that a reduced birthrate would be a good thing for humanity, due to overcrowding and diminishing resources. Overpopulation is becoming a problem in the modern world, there's no denying that.
Just to put another hole in your flimsy raft of an argument.
Sienisoturi wrote: This thread has gone quite out of hand. I will just put my reasons here to make it clear.
Reason one. Because western nations have poor population growth. I do believe that homosexuals might be a problem becasue of the decrease in the population growth they provide.
Reason two. Gays should have the right to non religious marriage but no private oraganisation should be forced to do gay marriages.
Reason three. In my opinion the ability of not having children is a disease. If science makes a way to allow gays to have childeren I believe that in that case only reason two should stay in effect.
1. There is 7 billion of us. There are orphanages. We have no natural enemy. Recources are not infinate.
2. I agree
3. Other species evolve through natural evolution. Humans evolve though natural evolution and cultural evolution. The amount how many humans there are is irrelevant.
Sienisoturi wrote: Although if we leave all this homosexuality thing I would like to hear your opinion on is it a disease if a person can't have children?
No, not being able to have children is not a disease. As has been mentioned there are many diffrent reasons people don't have children; through choice, through an actual disease causing infertility (or other reproductive issues), through not having a partner, or ant number of other different reasons.
Besides which, and it has already been mentioned, homosexual people can and do have children. There is absolutely nothing biological stopping most homosexual people having children (other than if they have an existing fertility issue that is independent of their sexuality).
I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.
Reason two. Gays should have the right to non religious marriage but no private oraganisation should be forced to do gay marriages.
2. I agree
An organisation taking part in the provision of an official state service should abide by the laws of the state, or lose the ability to provide that service.
Sienisoturi wrote: This thread has gone quite out of hand. I will just put my reasons here to make it clear.
Reason one. Because western nations have poor population growth. I do believe that homosexuals might be a problem becasue of the decrease in the population growth they provide.
Homosexuals account for 3% of the population. If a lack of population growth is a problem in our society, then I seriously doubt that 3% of the people are responsible for a supposedly general trend.
Reason two. Gays should have the right to non religious marriage but no private oraganisation should be forced to do gay marriages.
Likewise, no private organization should be forced to provide marriages to black people.
Reason three. In my opinion the ability of not having children is a disease.
And by the very definition of what the word 'disease' is, you are extremely patently and adamantly wrong.
What's more, why does the entire value of what makes a person amount down to their ability, desire and circumstance to have children? Are women who opt to not have children in favour of focusing on their careers similarly diseased?
Dark Apostle 666 wrote: Sienisoduri, I hate to get into this kind of internet stupidity, but for the record, it could be said that a reduced birthrate would be a good thing for humanity, due to overcrowding and diminishing resources. Overpopulation is becoming a problem in the modern world, there's no denying that.
Just to put another hole in your flimsy raft of an argument.
Yes I agree with that there are globaly enough people but the problem is that western nations start to have negative population growth.
Sienisoturi wrote: Although if we leave all this homosexuality thing I would like to hear your opinion on is it a disease if a person can't have children?
No, not being able to have children is not a disease. As has been mentioned there are many diffrent reasons people don't have children; through choice, through an actual disease causing infertility (or other reproductive issues), through not having a partner, or ant number of other different reasons.
Besides which, and it has already been mentioned, homosexual people can and do have children. There is absolutely nothing biological stopping most homosexual people having children (other than if they have an existing fertility issue that is independent of their sexuality).
I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.
Homosexuality is both physical and mental. But it's not at all similar to infertility. Same plumbing, it all works. Many gays even want to have children.
Reason two. Gays should have the right to non religious marriage but no private oraganisation should be forced to do gay marriages.
2. I agree
An organisation taking part in the provision of an official state service should abide by the laws of the state, or lose the ability to provide that service.
That is probably true, but wouldn't the best solution be that everybody goes through the non-religious one and those who want a religious ritual can have one.
Sienisoturi wrote: I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.
No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.
Sienisoturi wrote: Although if we leave all this homosexuality thing I would like to hear your opinion on is it a disease if a person can't have children?
No, not being able to have children is not a disease. As has been mentioned there are many diffrent reasons people don't have children; through choice, through an actual disease causing infertility (or other reproductive issues), through not having a partner, or ant number of other different reasons.
Besides which, and it has already been mentioned, homosexual people can and do have children. There is absolutely nothing biological stopping most homosexual people having children (other than if they have an existing fertility issue that is independent of their sexuality).
I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.
Homosexuality is both physical and mental. But it's not at all similar to infertility. Same plumbing, it all works. Many gays even want to have children.
That I think is quite positive, but there is still the problem that at the moment gays can't have children between themselves.
Sienisoturi wrote: I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.
No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.
But can you agree that both have the effect of not having children.
Sienisoturi wrote: I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.
No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.
But can you agree that both have the effect of not having children.
A gay man can go out right now, have sex with a woman, and get her pregnant. He won't enjoy the sex, but he's certainly capable of impregnating her (He can just picture Joseph Gordon Levitt in his head while he does it, I guess).
Sienisoturi wrote: I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.
No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.
But can you agree that both have the effect of not having children.
So does the point you refuse to answer, straight couples choosing not to have children because of careers/whatever reason
Sienisoturi wrote: I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.
No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.
But can you agree that both have the effect of not having children.
No, because you can have children as a homosexual and some fertility issues can also be treated or bypassed, leading to children.
May I ask you, should I remove my posts before the three reasons I said becase my earlier posts are a bit unclear and the three reasons sum my points wel enough?
A man goes to uni, studies law, and spearheads a groundbreaking case to protect freedom of speech. He meets a woman while at uni, who is studying medicine. She goes on to become a successful general surgeon. They choose not to have kids, despite the fact they get fertility testing and are perfectly capable. Did they do wrong by your books? Are you mandating breeding for all? Have they got a disease too?
Sienisoturi wrote: I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.
No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.
But can you agree that both have the effect of not having children.
No, because you can have children as a homosexual and some fertility issues can also be treated or bypassed, leading to children.
It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point, but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?
A man goes to uni, studies law, and spearheads a groundbreaking case to protect freedom of speech. He meets a woman while at uni, who is studying medicine. She goes on to become a successful general surgeon. They choose not to have kids, despite the fact they get fertility testing and are perfectly capable. Did they do wrong by your books? Are you mandating breeding for all? Have they got a disease too?
They do not have a disease and they did well but they could have done better and have children.
Sienisoturi wrote: It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point, but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?
Well, except that is not true, as homosexual people are more than capable of having children in most cases, and there are lots of straight couples who do not.
Sienisoturi wrote: I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.
No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.
But can you agree that both have the effect of not having children.
No, because you can have children as a homosexual and some fertility issues can also be treated or bypassed, leading to children.
It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point,
There's no point to agreeing or disagreeing, because in this instance, and many others, you are factually wrong.
but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?
Where is your evidence backing up this claim? Homosexual couples raise children all the time.
A man goes to uni, studies law, and spearheads a groundbreaking case to protect freedom of speech. He meets a woman while at uni, who is studying medicine. She goes on to become a successful general surgeon. They choose not to have kids, despite the fact they get fertility testing and are perfectly capable. Did they do wrong by your books? Are you mandating breeding for all? Have they got a disease too?
They do not have a disease and they did well but they could have done better and have children.
So people who don't have children are by default worse as human beings then? Why is this?
By extension, would those who are physically incapable of having children then be sub-human?
So why would a gay couple in the same situation (replace one of them with a member of the same sex as the other) have a disease, and have not just 'done well but could have done better'(which in and of itself is so wrong)?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: This thread is proof that sometimes not having children can be a good thing...
Sienisoturi wrote: It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point, but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?
Well, except that is not true, as homosexual people are more than capable of having children in most cases, and there are lots of straight couples who do not.
Sienisoturi wrote: It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point, but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?
Well, except that is not true, as homosexual people are more than capable of having children in most cases, and there are lots of straight couples who do not.
I would like to know how the gays have children?
Well, it typically involves a sperm fertilizing an egg, and then at some point down the line, a baby pops out of a vagina.
Sienisoturi wrote: That I think is quite positive, but there is still the problem that at the moment gays can't have children between themselves.
No, its not a problem. Theres nothing stopping a gay couple from adopting, or using sperm donation to have their own kids. If they [a lesbian couple] want their kids to be biologically related, then they could each carry a child using the sperm of the same father. That would make their kids half-siblings.
What IS a problem, is bigots calling homosexuality a disease to be researched and cured. You say that you don't want to force homosexuals to be cured, but should be encouraged to do so. By "encouraging" a cure, you are still denormalising homosexuals and ostracising them.
Homosexuality is NOT a disease, its a natural phenomenon. People are born that way, they don't choose to be gay, no more than a transexual chooses to be born with a gender misaligned with their sex [body]. To say that gay people should be cured of their homosexuality is straying into Eugenics,, and that is a very, VERY dangerous topic.
Sienisoturi wrote: It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point, but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?
Well, except that is not true, as homosexual people are more than capable of having children in most cases, and there are lots of straight couples who do not.
I would like to know how the gays have children?
You know how children are created right?
Well, it's like that. Just sometimes the males donate sperm and have a surrogate carry the baby to term.
Or there's this other wonderful option called "Adoption", which is kind of like shopping for a baby.*
*It's really not. It's a lengthy and in-depth process, when done correctly, that is a major financial and time consuming commitment which ideally results in a child being placed in a loving home whether the parents are gay or straight, religious or atheist.
Sienisoturi wrote: I do respect your word as a medical expert but don't you think infertility is similar to homosexuality? Other is mental other is physical.
No, it is not similar. The two issues are completely unrelated.
But can you agree that both have the effect of not having children.
No, because you can have children as a homosexual and some fertility issues can also be treated or bypassed, leading to children.
It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point,
There's no point to agreeing or disagreeing, because in this instance, and many others, you are factually wrong.
Fine I can agree that homosexuality is not a disease but it is a limiting factor in producing children.
but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?
Where is your evidence backing up this claim? Homosexual couples raise children all the time.
Yes they grow children all the time but they don't produce them.
A man goes to uni, studies law, and spearheads a groundbreaking case to protect freedom of speech. He meets a woman while at uni, who is studying medicine. She goes on to become a successful general surgeon. They choose not to have kids, despite the fact they get fertility testing and are perfectly capable. Did they do wrong by your books? Are you mandating breeding for all? Have they got a disease too?
They do not have a disease and they did well but they could have done better and have children.
So people who don't have children are by default worse as human beings then? Why is this?
I believe it is so because when you have children you will have more tax payers and your population grows. Also (maybe not in america) why should the children of those people who have gone through the trouble of having children pay the pensions of people who have not gotten children?
By extension, would those who are physically incapable of having children then be sub-human?
I do not believe they are sub-human but of course it would be better if they would be cured and they could have children.
Sienisoturi wrote: That I think is quite positive, but there is still the problem that at the moment gays can't have children between themselves.
No, its not a problem. Theres nothing stopping a gay couple from adopting, or using sperm donation to have their own kids. If they [a lesbian couple] want their kids to be biologically related, then they could each carry a child using the sperm of the same father. That would make their kids half-siblings.
What IS a problem, is bigots calling homosexuality a disease to be researched and cured. You say that you don't want to force homosexuals to be cured, but should be encouraged to do so. By "encouraging" a cure, you are still denormalising homosexuals and ostracising them.
Homosexuality is NOT a disease, its a natural phenomenon. People are born that way, they don't choose to be gay, no more than a transexual chooses to be born with a gender misaligned with their sex [body]. To say that gay people should be cured of their homosexuality is straying into Eugenics,, and that is a very, VERY dangerous topic.
Sienisoturi wrote: It is probablty best to agree to disagree at this point, but I want to hear that do you aknolegde my point that while most straight couples will have children homosexuals wont?
Well, except that is not true, as homosexual people are more than capable of having children in most cases, and there are lots of straight couples who do not.
I would like to know how the gays have children?
You know how children are created right?
Well, it's like that. Just sometimes the males donate sperm and have a surrogate carry the baby to term.
Or there's this other wonderful option called "Adoption", which is kind of like shopping for a baby.*
*It's really not. It's a lengthy and in-depth process, when done correctly, that is a major financial and time consuming commitment which ideally results in a child being placed in a loving home whether the parents are gay or straight, religious or atheist.
Thanks for your answers. As I see so, there is no way the gays could produce children on complitely on their own so they always require some sort of help.
This way that you mentioned the sperm donation it kinda is the "cure" that I talked about by allowing gays to reproduce like straight people.
Fine I can agree that homosexuality is not a disease but it is a limiting factor in producing children.
No it is not.
Yes they grow children all the time but they don't produce them.
Wrong again.
Gay couples CAN have children. Not with each other ,true, but why does that matter? Is DNA all you care about? And besides - medical research is actually being done to try to find a way to combine the DNA of gay couples (implanting DNA information into sperm/eggs etc). Who knows - perhaps one day it will be possible to combine the DNA of two gay men or two gay women to create a child (not that I think this would be a particularly good idea).
For gay men - sperm donation using surrogate mothers.
For gay women - they can carry their own children using a sperm donor. If they both use the same donor, their children will even be biologically related half siblings.
I do not believe they are sub-human but of course it would be better if they would be cured and they could have children.
Better for whom? Not for homosexuals, certainly. Very very few of them want to be cured, and most of the ones who do want to be cured are probably motivated by discriminatory social pressure and ostracisation.
Homosexuals CAN have children. Many of them DO Have children. Homosexuality is NOT a threat to the future of the human race.
I'm tempted to report you, but I think bigoted idiots should be allowed to draw attention to themselves so everyone can see them for what they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sienisoturi wrote: This way that you mentioned the sperm donation it kinda is the "cure" that I talked about by allowing gays to reproduce like straight people.
Then you're admitting that there is no problem, and hence no need for a cure? Homosexuals can have children, and many of them in fact do have children. This "problem" exists only in your mind.
Fine I can agree that homosexuality is not a disease but it is a limiting factor in producing children.
Of course, it is worth noting that, as far as biological history is concerned, there is the theory that gay males had better avuncular qualities than straight siblings, leading to better maintenance of larger families. Similarly, its also been proposed that the same genes that cause homosexuality in men are also responsible for causing increased fecundity in women.
Yes they grow children all the time but they don't produce them.
All the same parts, all the same necessary fluids. They most certainly can produce them.
So people who don't have children are by default worse as human beings then? Why is this?
I believe it is so because when you have children you will have more tax payers and your population grows.
So, for example, Alan Turing, one of the greatest minds of our era, would be a lesser person than some trailer trash hick family contributing nothing to society outside of a number of bodies, simply by the virtue that they are popping out bodies. We can even assume that these parents will abuse their children, and ultimately that the majority of them grow up to be criminals that cause damage to society, but on the basis of your statement, they are still better people.
Also (maybe not in america) why should the children of those people who have gone through the trouble of having children pay the pensions of people who have not gotten children?
Because the taxes of those who don't have children end up going to pay for the education and medical care for those who do.
You're using a group called "The Family Research Council" to support your argument on the basis of "research".
It's a Conservative Christian organization, not a scientific institution.
They don't do "research". They have paid puppets, like most organizations with the name "Family" or "Values" in them that weigh in on the subject of gay marriage and gay relationships.
Now, start actually doing some research on the organizations that you're pulling arguments from. You might be surprised at what you learn.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wow Sienisoturi. I may say some stupid stuff, but atleast im lovable and huggable. But you just come off as nothing more then a jerk.
How about just making it your last post spewing all this debunked anti-gay rhetoric that has filled numerous pages of this thread?
James Dobson, the founder of the Family Research Council, which promotes what it considers to be traditional family values, by advocating and lobbying for socially conservative policies. It opposes and lobbies against LGBT rights (such as same-sex marriage and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography, who also founded Focus on the Family, an organization that promotes abstinence-only sexual education; adoption by married, opposite-sex parents; creationism; school prayer; and traditional gender roles also opposing abortion; divorce; gambling; LGBT rights, particularly LGBT adoption and same-sex marriage; pornography; pre-marital sex; and substance abuse, is a well known anti-homosexual evangelical leader so any [debunked] "study" to support his stance should be treated with suspicion.
I think this thread broke my brain. The bigotry is insane, and people that feel this way towards their fellow man are just about the lowest scum around. Thank god it's only one person on here pig-headed enough to believe the crap he's spewing.
timetowaste85 wrote: I think this thread broke my brain. The bigotry is insane, and people that feel this way towards their fellow man are just about the lowest scum around. Thank god it's only one person on here pig-headed enough to believe the crap he's spewing.
There are more, they just don't often post in these threads, unless they're wanting to play the "I'm being persecuted" card that day.
