Hey women: how did you like not being able to vote earlier last century? How do you like making 85% of the average male wage? Hey blacks, how did you like segregation pre-1964? How do you like being 10 times+ more likely to be labeled as a criminal? It is time to put a stop to discrimination justified by religion. Religious liberty has nothing to do with gay rights. They will still be able to practice their beliefs just as before (punto).
Ok, 2 things here. 1. How exactly does this hurt children again? You mean *gasp* they might actually grow up and NOT spread hate? They might actually learn about alternative life styles instead of being shocked by it when they leave their parents? Apparently it is bad to educate our kids. Great argument.
2. It's funny how Christian conservatives have a problem re-defining marriage, but NO PROBLEM re-defining RAPE. (They passed HR3, didn't they?)
@TheVVanderingStar What makes you think that States don't have the right to do what they want? History has definately tought us that when it suits them they will take away our rights whenever they damn well please. When Japanesse Americans were locked up in camps in WWII they had the right to not be unjustly imprisoned but they were denied that right at a time when they needed it the most and the government just took them away. Rights are not rights if someone can just take them away.
"the state doesn't have the control to deny ..children a mother and a father..."
no the families deny them that already
I was raised by just a mother
no father what so ever, just a mother
the state didn't take that away, and the state never has taken away that "fundamental right"
the families have, and according to the American Psychoanalytic Association, these children, including myself, were raised normally and became mentally normal adults... so let's not make anymore hasty generalizations
You denying us marriage....does not stop us from having children and forming families. You cant stop that! What you are doing it child abuse to our children. The equal protection clause is on our side. Stop the ignorance. Stop the hate. Stop the bigotry. LOVE one another.
No one is denying a child a mother and a father. Biology makes sure that happens. But as any adopted child will tell you biology does NOT make a family. LOVE makes a family. Gay people have families too. By denying gay people the right to marry you are only hurting children in gay families. Our love is no less.
If we didn't redefine marriage black people wouldn't be able to marry white people, 16 states had that on the book in 1967, the parents of the current president would not have been allowed to marry in nearly 1/3 of the country their son grew up to lead and no matter how you feel about his politics is not the issue.
Actually, the comparison to the ban on interracial marriage is flawed. Imposing an unnatural limit on marriage based on skin color actually 'redefined' marriage; removing the ban restored marriage to its natural state - between one man and one woman.
You use the word natural as if homosexuality didn't exist in nature and it only happens with humans but that is not the case. And my argument is not flawed, the way you think it is between one man and one woman was the way during and before the 60's that it was between one white man and one white woman where in reality it is between two consenting adults.
Homosexuality is an aberration of nature - a species cannot continue if the norm, that is, what is natural to it, is homosexuality because of course it cannot reproduce itself. This is not a derogatory statement simply one of fact.
Furthermore, the existence of homosexuality does not deem it natural (although persons are to be respected). With very few exceptions, the millennia long definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
Homosexuality hurts no one, so how is it a sin? And this mother and father crap in this vid? One word- single parenting. This world is hitting a huge population issue, and a lot of those kids are being abondoned and abused. If anything, those kids grow up in a loving home that they would otherwise live without. I really do think that God loves all of His children, gay or straight, and that if He makes you gay, he wants you to live gay. This is an example of man ignorantly assuming we know God.
So are you saying your for removing the ban on same sex marriage that the Christian church implementing in 316 AD and return it to it's original state where homosexuals could freely marry?
@ma7799 Back then it certainly did. Their version of marriage was a white entitlement therefor by making it legal for blacks to marry redefined the definition of marriage at the time.
I love these videos. Thanks for putting the effort into making them. I was involved in the p8 fight in California, and am still a staunch marriage defender. I had never seen these clips before. I'm not Catholic, but the truth is the same across the board on this one. Thanks for the simple clarity!
No one can promise ANY child a mother AND a father. People die, people split up, rapists impregnate women, abusers impregnate women, men get sent to war, women get sent to war. There are no guarantees in life. Any child who has any number of people who love them and are concerned with their well being is blessed.
You wrote: Any child who has any number of people who love them and are concerned with their well being is blessed.
Where this is true, we don't call it marriage. True, there are no guarantees mom and dad won't die, etc. however gay 'marriage' guarantees that either mom or dad won't be there. That's no okay - and society has a responsibility to protect kids rights to a mom and a dad wherever possible.
@mm2kids What about orphaned children?If society has responsibilities to give kids parents whenever possible, shouldn't we be leaping at the fact of gay parents giving love and a home to children? They have no parents, and if you let gays marry, maybe they would get parents. So what if they are gay parents, gay parents are better then no parents! Would you rather them live alone in an orphanage with no parents or them to live a happy, successful life with gay parents.
We redefine or update words all the time. Haven't we updated "All men are created equal"? When it was written all men were defined as white men. It certainly did not include women. The question is should we redefine the 1st amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Maybe creating gay couples is God's way of keeping our exploding population under control? Maybe it is perfectly natural?
Animals known to engage in Homosexuality continued 3: Harbor Seal, Himalayan Tahr, Hoary Marmot, Horse (domestic), Human, Indian Fruit Bat, Indian Muntjac, Indian Rhinoceros, Japanese Macaque, Javelina, Kangaroo Rat, Killer Whale, Koala, Kob, Larga Seal, Least Chipmunk, Lechwe, Lesser Bushbaby, Lion, Lion-tailed Macaque, Lion Tamarin, Little Brown Bat, Livingstone's Fruit Bat, Long-eared Hedgehog, Long-footed Tree Shrew, Macaque, Markhor, Marten, Matschie's Tree Kangaroo, Moco, Mohol Galago.
Animals known to engage in Homosexuality continued: Brown Long-eared Bat, Brown Rat, Buffalo, Caribou, Cat (domestic), Cattle (domestic), Cheetah, Collared Peccary, Commerson's Dolphin, Common Brushtail Possum, Common Chimpanzee, Common Dolphin, Common Marmoset, Common Pipistrelle, Common Raccoon, Common Tree Shrew, Cotton-top Tamarin, Crab-eating Macaque, Crested Black Macaque, Cui, Dall's Sheep, Daubenton's Bat, Dog (domestic), Doria's Tree Kangaroo, Dugong, Dwarf Cavy, Dwarf Mongoose.
Marriage was originally between one man and many women. Marriage is a legal document they can keep their stupid ass bible holy bullshit to themselves and we'll keep the legal part. This is such a blatantly religious argument, I wish they would just admit that they hate gay people. All they can get is priests to come on their videos, how come their aren't any social scientists? CUZ THEY DON'T AGREE WITH YOU AND YOU ARE WRONG!
Thank you for your post. I am sorry you perceive us as hating gay people. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Catholic Church has been the largest caregiver to people with AIDS. I know because I volunteered for several years at an AIDS hospice (in the height of the epidemic) here in SF with Mother Teresa's sisters. Those men knew they were loved and I am so thankful for the opportunity to have shared my life with them before they died. I hope that helps you understand who we are.
That's not really the point. The point is that marriage really is legal and not religious, but all I see is religious arguments. I want a real reason why same-sex couples can't get married is all.
True, however you leveled a charge that it's really about us 'hating gays' and I was answering that charge. You said that marriage is not about kids but actually the only reason the State has an interest in regulating marriage is because of its stake in the next generation. This is only possible between a man and a woman. The State has no interest in anyone marrying who they love.
I meant marriage has nothing to do in the fact that children aren't involved in all marriages. Shouldn't people who can't have kids be banned from marriage too, or elderly couples? It doesn't make sense, marriage is first and foremost a legal document providing spouses (not children) with rights. So I don't see why same-sex couples can't have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
Actually that is exactly what marriage is NOT - a legal document. If that is the totality of your understanding of what marriage is, then why does it matter if the state recognizes it or not? Domestic partner laws are legal documents that afford all of the legal rights and privileges of a marriage license? So why insist on marriage?
Why can't SS couples marry? Because when you redefine marriage you must as a matter of course deconstruct that which is already there. Marriage is the basic cell of our society and children depend on its stability for their well-being. If it is deconstructed then chidlren pay the price. Look at the Netherlands-because of SSM, hetero couples now rarely marry. 60% of 1st children are born out of wedlock and 80% of subsequent children. How can this be good not only for children, but for any of us?
Also who care whether heterosexual couples marry or not? That's their choice. Marriage is a legal right, denying homosexuals that right is discrimination. Also Two men or two women are perfectly capable of raising a child, just look at the research.
1) The fabric of our society is dependent on stable families. If heterosexual people stop marrying then that stability is jeopardized. Kids pay the price. You may not care but I care. 2) There is no legal right to marry anyone you choose. The 'discrimination battle cry' is growing very old and tired. 3) There is no research that supports same-sex 'parenting'. To the contrary, people raised by homosexual parents are beginning to speak out against same-sex marriage.
It takes a lot to convince me, do you have data? I have read studies of children raised by same-sex couples and the children do just as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples. Also you seem to not know your facts in that Domestic Partnerships do not offer all the same legal protection as Marriage. Also Domestic Partnerships are not recognized in most places. Yes, you're right, there is no legal right to marry ANYONE you choose, but denying two consenting adults that right is wrong.
1) Can you give me the citation to those studies? 2)In California the Domestic Partner Act dictated that DPs must be allowed the same legal rights and privileges that marriage affords. 3) What if those two consenting adults are already married? Or maybe they are first cousins - should this be allowed? Isn't this discrimination?
I can probably find you them. Still Domestic Partnership is not the same as marriage so it still discriminates no matter what. What if they said that interracial couples can marry but they have to call it something else (civil union, domestic partnership), people would be sickened. As for relatives marrying, that is ridiculous because that is incest which illegal and this has nothing to do with incest. There are limits, and incest is beyond that limit.
1) Please do send them along-thank you. 2)How are domestic partnerships different if by your definiton marriage is just a legal document not attached to responsibilities relating to children? 3) The comparison of a lifestyle choice (based on sexual orientation)to bans on interracial marriage (based on skin color) is offensive to African-americans who have suffered true discrimination because of the color of their skin.
I don't honestly give a shit what offends African-Americans, Homosexuals do not have a choice either. You obviously think homosexuals "choose" to be that way, which is insanity. If you could would you choose to black if slavery was still legal. Why would anyone choose a life where pretty much of society hates them, it doesn't make sense. Also You know as well as I do that incest and homosexuality are two totally different and unrelated things and cannot be compared.
I was not comparing incestuous relationships to homosexual relationships by their content. My question to you is, if we decide that ANY two consenting adults who love each other should be able to marry, how can you say that first cousins shouldn't be able to marry without it being a case of unjust discrimination? What are the grounds for your argument?
I don't actually think that it is illegal to have a sexual relationship with a first cousin but I'll need to check. Regardless it seems that the legality or illegality of the act is your premise on whether or not it is unjust discrimination. What if sodomy became illegal again? Would forbidding same-sex marriage no longer be unjust discrimination in your mind?
I'm pretty certain incest is illegal so please do get back to me on that. Homosexuality is a legitimate orientation such as heterosexuality and bisexuality, but incest is not.
How do you decide what is legitimate? According to natural law only heterosexual orientations are natural. So, what is your criteria for legitimate? How can bisexuality be an orientation when it encompases both heterosexuality and homosexuality? Do you think that people are born bisexual? How does that make sense if you believe that the homosexually orientated person is unable to change?
No, look at the animal kingdom, there are many animals known to engage in homosexuality. Therefore it is natural since animals don't really choose things. With bisexuality it's being attracted to both sexes so really it's an orientation all by itself. Actually my general opinion on sexual orientation is that every human is bisexual, whether they express it or not.
Which animals engage in homosexuality? And, is that natural to the species? Natural law is defied in homosexual acts. Simply put, a rectum is not a sexual organ, it's an organ for excreting bodily waste. Treating it like a sexual organ results in many diseases-not just AIDS-that shortens the lives (of those who engage in this act consistently) by decades. Regardless of a person's orientation, engaging in this act is a violation of nature. The person is not bad, but the act is unnatural.
I never claimed that anal sex was natural. You're wrong about it shortening life span, that was a myth that has been dispelled. You are right about the AIDS and other diseases though. I will get you a list of the animals known to engage in homosexuality. Anyway my point is homosexuality is natural but not anal sex.
If anal sex is not natural, how can homosexuality which expresses itself sexually(in men) via anal sex, be natural? It is NO myth this shortens a person's lifespan. I have worked in ERs & hospices and have seen the bodily results of a lifetime of sodomy. It is so heartbreaking to see how the dignity of the human body has been degraded. I've seen far too much to be swayed by activism & doctored social science. This is not a lifestyle that is good for anyone & I want the best for my fellowman.
Not all homosexual men engage in anal sex. Having anal sex does not cause a shorter life span but it does put you at higher risk for Sexually Transmitted Diseases. I don't see how you can call it a lifestyle, they are just born that way, there is no choice.
it's just frightening that you can not see how harmful they are.
Gay people will exist until the end of the human race. there is no converting to heterosexuality....only repression. Asking someone to repress love? it hurts.
4) The premise for SSM is that people should be able to marry whoever they want-how would you draw a clear line that excludes some people who want to marry a relative? You can't fall back on 'societal norms' or 'natural law' because your premise of equal protection has already eliminated those arguments as justification for limiting marriage between only one man and one woman.
lol...they just contradicted themselves. Yes the state has nothing to do with defining yourself...so if the state allows gay marriage...it doesn't mean you'd have to marry someone of the same sex! And YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT marriage IS defined by family....because MY family defines marriage as the union of ANY couple who wish to commit to be together. My religion does not think less of people because they are gay. What about MY religious freedom? What about my church's religious freedom?
Your church doesn't have the right or authority to redefine the bible and it's teachings. Some of the congregation is putting pressure on the church to allow gays as clergy. This is not biblical. Timothy states that a deacon must be of the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and household well. There are standards and guidelines to hold a position in the church. People who have sin such as adultry and homosexualty in their lives shouldn't be candidates.
YOUR BIBLE HAS BEEN REDEFINED COUNTLESS TIMES. I don't believe in YOUR bible. YOUR bible was not written by Jesus. other people wrote it in Arameic it has been translated and interpreted for you. Jesus NEVER wrote a word. These people can't even agree on the YOUR bible up to now. If so, there would have been peace between Muslims, Jews and Christians...they ALL believe in YOUR god. But JESUS can't even inspire peace between the Orthodox Greeks & Armenians. Know Jesus NO peace.
Wow! You sound SO angry. I know PEACE, I know Christ.. I have both in my life. I can't convince you and will not try. Doesn't sound like you anywhere close to listening anyway. Lighten up please!
you bet I'm angry. I'm angry at Christian hypocracy. Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Teg Haggard, Tony Alamo and Pat Robertson. All Christian ought to protest war, the military, death row and any institution that teaches you to kill and hate. But no, they protest against LOVE. If I love someone of the same sex it's cause for donations in campaigning against it. But where are those donation for Tibet, Myanmar or Malawi. Where is the love where is the peace?
You can't expect a christian nation to condone homosexuality. It's against our moral fiber. I will fight against it as hard as you fight for it. It's actually hypocracy to condone such acts.
That's the hypocrisy I'm talking about. You fight against homosexuality but you don't fight against killing. CHRISTIANITY CONDONE KILLING not loving. It's against YOUR moral fabric to love. You need to look into yourself as to the reason why you are so against this. ME THINKS DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH.
I don't protest enough! I am tired of christians standly by and getting thrown under the bus. All in the name of LOVE! Bull. Don't throw the " you guys are all just supposed to LOVE" stuff my way. Yes, we are called to love the sinner but hate the sin. Fight against the sin. By the way, WE are all sinners. I am not pointing fingers here. But at least I call a spade a spade and not roll over on principles because it's uncomfortable now and again.
You can look at like this...I love my children. I would literally die for anyone of them. However, I do require them to behave in a morally and responsible way. When they don't there are consequences.
Hmmm...if they decide to join the military and learn to kill, you'd be all for it. But if they happen to be gay, all hell will break loose. Your morality would allow them to kill but won't allow them to love. That is Christian value. That is Christian morality.
Billy Graham said it best...a child would need even more love. Don't presume to know me and make statements on my behalf. No way would I ever disown a child of mine. You come across with such accusations that are not even true. You might want to work on your "love thing" a bit with all people.
oh...was I wrong? You would protest against the military? You wouldn't want them to join the police to learn how to kill? And you would also let them be homosexuals if they were? I have nothing against the military or the police because my beliefs do not exclude killing for self-defense. But yours does.
"Danger in re-defining marriage"? If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white. Sixteen States had laws which made that illegal in 1967! It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad history of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized for slaves. Since they were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, nor mother and child. U know? just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.
Gay marriage does not have anything to do with whether a child has a mother or father or not. There will always be kids without a mother and a father because of death divorce, or single parent homes. Gays can already adopt children whether they have a marriage or not. The kids who live in orphanages are already without parents and would be lucky to be adopted by anyone that would give them love and care for them. Children could care less if gays were allowed to get married or not.
I think you miss the point. If two men are acting as 'dad' and 'papa' to a child, where's the mother? In single parent homes etc everyone understands that a parent is missing-not so with same-sex adoptive parents who equate their relationship with marriage between a man and a woman (which naturally provides children with a mother and father). The children being adopted by gays are rarely the ones languishing in orphanages. Looking around (in SF) there are a lot of babies being given to gays.
So you're saying that two men or two women can't provide a child with love and affection the same way that a man/woman couple can? It seems to me that your real point is that gays are inferior parents to straights, and that gay parents are worse just because both sexes aren't present.
Exactly, two men or two women cannot give a child what a mother and a father can give a child. And yes a same-sex couple is ontologically inferior to a mother and father when it comes to being a mother and a father to a child. It is something they simply cannot provide. It not a question of capacity to love; children need love but they also need the complimentary love that can only come from a mother and a father.
Okay, so why would you say that only a mother and father couple can give a child the right kind of complimentary upbringing? Why do you propose that a same-sex couple is inferior?
By definition a "SAME"-sex couple cannot provide sexual complimentarity to the upbringing of a child. It is not a matter of inferiority or superiority with regard to the individual dignity of the homosexual person, it is simply impossible for two dads or two moms to give a child a mother and a father, and in that respect a same-sex couple is ontologically inferior when it comes to parenting. This is a discrimination of nature and reality and can only be "changed" by altering reality.
Of course, every straight couple with kids is doing greeeat. If you think about it, a gay couple who adopt a kid are more likely to truly want the child than some straight couple who accidentally got pregnant — but by your definition, the same-sex couple would be worse for the child. Additionally, if that's your reason for concern, marriage is irrelevant; a same-sex couple can adopt and raise a child whether or not they are married.
Yes that is true, a same-sex couple cannot provide a child their mother and father. Let's not compare an "ideal" homosexual situation to a bad heterosexual situation and then call it a fair comparison. A same-sex home is never ideal for a child. Although it is true that any unmarried person can adopt, I would like to see that change. I've seen far too many children paraded around amongst the pornography and S&M demos at the SF gay pride parade to believe kids are better off in these 'families'.
You guys know why you lost at the ballot? You guys just ticked off way too many people, especially the minorities and certain events that lead up to it. I was actually indifferent to gay marriage up till this year. You guys went about it the wrong way and just ticked off the minorities and people that were indifferent to the issue altogether. And let's be honest now, not everyone that is against gay marriage is a religious nut, homophobic or a jerk. There's more to it.
No, the reason that "we" lost is that ignorance, intolerance and homophobia are depressingly rampant throughout much of society today, particularly among minorities, unfortunately.
It isn't surprising that blacks and Hispanics, who tend to be less educated than whites as a whole, and are much more traditionally Christian as a culture than are whites, should have voted the way they did.
Traditionally Christian part for the Latinos and blacks I can agreed. But what anger the blacks more was that the pro-gay marriage side kept on comparing their movement to the Civil Rights movement, which is completely out of place and not even in the same historical context. BTW, the majority of Asians were against gay marriage and many of them are educated, many of the Japanese-Americans didnt like the gays using the internment camps for their cause.
I think they use the Civil Rights movement as an example because it is the most comparable event in recent memory. The entire concept that motivated the Civil Rights movement was one of equality. Blacks recognized they were being unjustifiable discriminated against.
Gays have likewise long recognized that they, as a group, are being unjustifiably discriminated against.
Blacks wanted change, and they fought for it. Gays want change, and they are fighting for it. The comparison is appropriate.
Yes, because we all know that gays were made slaves, counted as 1/4 as a person, lynched and killed on the streets daily at 1 time in the USA and had to suffer during the Jim Crow era, not to mentioned they were hosed with water and shot down like animals during the Civil Rights Movement, which they had no part in but decided to hijack that movement and made it as if they were a part of it.
Another thing they hijacked was the Japanese Americans being interned and comparing it with their struggle in a NO on Prop 8 AD. That also ticked off lots of people. It's kind of funny that gays make fun and disrespect many ethnic minority groups, but when they need something they use other group's struggles and tried to put their struggle along with those groups to elicit sympathy. Rosie O Donnell comes to mind and Ellen Degeneres.
Oh yeah, another thing with Gays saying that they're born that way, which is basically a lie. Peer reviewed scientific journals says that only 35% of one's genetics account for our sexuality, while 65% of one's own environmental factors account for our own sexuality. genes only play a modest role, but external factors play a dominant role. I would rather believe science than gays over any day. And these scientific journals were authored by people knowledgeable in these fields.
Please cite these journals you are referencing. Because your claim is not supported by the scientific community at large.
Again, it depends on how you are defining homosexuality, but estimates run from more than 1% to 10% or higher, some estimates at 13%. This is according to Kinsey 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Male', Janus Report on Sexual Behavior, and Hite Report on Male Sexuality, to name a few.
The Kinsey report today is considered badly flawed by the scientific community due to today's stringent scientific methods. You're citing a report that was done more than 50 years ago. Maybe you're the one that needs to be educated.
LOL. You're saying the Kinsey report has been discredited by the scientific community?? Please provide your sources.
Do you even know what the Kinsey report is? It was a landmark study for its time, the first of its kind. Of course some methods of collecting data have been refined since then, but that does not in any way refute his findings. That's like saying Darwin's findings have been refuted by current data. LOL wow, you are dumber than I thought.
The Kinsey report does not hold up to the stringent standards of the scientific methods used today. Here's an analogy. Physicians in the 60s commonly believed that acne and diet has no correlation and it was printed in the New England Journal of medicine. Today that report is considered to be flawed based on new studies that disproves it and stringently follows the scientific method. If you don't have anything of substance, don't engage in ad-homninen attacks.
We don't know what determines sexual orientation, yet, (although there is evidence of genetic factors, as well as hormonal factors in utero), but health professionals are nearly unanimous in their opinion that the individual has little or no choice in their orientation. To call same-sex orientation a choice, or a "lifestyle", is extremely ignorant.
Actually we do have a pretty good idea. The latest peer review scientific journals will not be picked up by the liberal left wing media which is dominated by gays and their supporters, these reports goes against what they trumpet to be the truth. No modern day journal cites that 10-20 percent of the population being gay. At most 4% of the population. Even the gays don't want to seriously debate this , because this involves science not some religious book.
Nice try, I'm not a conservative and I was actually for gay marriages at one point saying that if the gays aren't harming or pushing their views on anyone, then it's not my business. But you guys messed up by doing just that by pushing your views on other people and disrupting lives.
gays and their supporters have been adamant that one is born a homosexual and that genetics determine this.When there has been cases of thousands of identical twins being studied upon and researchers have found out that if one twin is gay the other has a 50% chance of not being gay.If homosexuality is determined by genetics then why isn't the other twin gay 100% of the time? Since identical twins share the same exact genetic material?the gays and their supporters don't want to go there
Wow, you really don't know what you are talking about.
Studies show that identical twins are *more likely* to share the same sexual orientation than other siblings, which supports the idea that there is a genetic basis for same-sex orientation.
And in 1993 the National Institute of Health found a stretch of DNA on the X chromosome that seemed to harbor one or more genes affecting sexual orientation.
Genetic experiments on fruit flies have yielded supportive evidence as well.
No, you guys have asserted that homosexuality is purely genetic. ANd identical twins have the same exact genetic makeup. if that's the case then why is it half the time that only one twin is gay and not both of them? You can't explain it but make up lies and say both twins are gay or one's in the closet.
BTW, gays and their supporters have been saying that there is a gay gene. I would like to see a recent peer review scientific journal on this that supports the claim, as in within this year, not some report that was around 60 years old.
I haven't heard anyone saying anything about a "gay gene", because the fact is, nothing of the sort has been discovered. There is genetic evidence, but it is not conclusive. So I don't know where you are getting this bad information.
There are other, non-genetic, theories as well. It would behoove you to actually study the issue before spouting your ignorant, offensive opinions everywhere. You look like an idiot.
Sorry you're avoiding your side's assertion by stating that one is born a homosexual and being adamant that a conclusion has been made. And many of you have asserted that there is a gay gene. So either put up or shut up. Remeber this I am a man of logic and science, not some religious nut. You guys have a tough battle to fight against the social and physical sciences as well.
Health professionals haven't considered homosexuality to be a pathology in over 100 years. Where are you getting this information that homosexuality is considered a "sexual deviance".
That's funny, the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which is basically the standard handbook used by psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychoanalysts, as well as other health professionals, does not consider homosexuality to be a disorder.
Ah! The classic strawman argument. I have never stated that sociologists considered it to be a mental disorder. So don't bring up what psychiatrists or psychologists said. Nice try. I stated that they as in sociologists considered it to be in the realm of deviance.
Oh I don't know who these sociologists are, maybe Durkheim, Sutherland, Merton, and their theories on deviance. If you don't understand deviance, then maybe you should look it up. Homosexuality is considered to be deviant behavior within American society. I don't think I need to cite any sources that homosexuals are look upon as deviants and not accepted. And please don't cite places like SAN fran or Berekly.
Are we talking about health professionals or organizations that are pro gay? How about talking about sociologists that deemed it as deviance. Them, the social scientists termed it as deviance. So why do you keep on bringing up psychiatrists and health professionals? Why not try to bring up a sociologist that is pro gay to back up your argument that it is not considered deviant? But you can't because basically all of them view homosexuality as deviant behavior.
"Sexual deviance", as you call it, has a clinical term. It is "paraphilia". Paraphilia was codified as a disorder in the DSM-IV in 1980, but the view of paraphilias as disorders is not universal.
Nowhere is homosexuality considered a paraphilia, or as a "sexual deviance", as you call it.
FYI no one in scientific circles uses terms like "sexual deviance". They speak in terms of disorders and pathologies.
There we go with the strawman argument. Do you know what a strawman argument is? I said deviance, nor did I say anything about sexual deviance or psychology. If you don't understand what it means look it up. Sociology is what I refer to.
Uh, yeah I think I know what a straw man fallacy is, considering I minored in philosophy and formally studied logic. Where did you learn what a straw man fallacy is? Some website? Might be awhile before you know how to properly identify it, judging by your previous posts.
Again I'm getting a part of my information from sociologists as in dealing with sociology. And I already stated one of my sources. Where's yours besides the Kinsey Report? How about one that's not 60 years old? ANd We're not talking about psychology are we?
You cited an 'Intro to Sociology' college textbook. I highly doubt it contains what you claim, since such a view is not even remotely held by health professionals.
I don't know why you keep focusing on the Kinsey Report, since I already also cited the Janus Report, the Hite Report, and the DSM-IV.
Also you have not provided evidence of anyone refuting any information in the Kinsey Report. How does one refute interviews anyway? Criticism I can understand, but conclusive refutation? LOL
Sociologist have all determined that homosexuality is deviance, but yet their wrong because they don't support your views while psychologists are considered to be more valid because they support your views? lol What about researchers in the realm of biology that don't support your views that homosexuality is just genetics? Environmental factors are the basis of 65% of one's sexuality and the dominant factor? lol What are you going to bring out a psychiatrist report to dispute biologists? lol
If by 'deviance' you mean an aberration of standard behavior within a cultural norm, then I guess you could call homosexuality a "deviance" by virtue of it being underrepresented compared to the heterosexual majority.
But by that standard, punk music is a deviance since only a minority of the population listens to that type of music.
Why you are attributing moral value to it is a mystery to me.
Why do you keep insisting that I claimed homosexuality orientation is genetic?
Of course that's what I meant all along, but somehow and somewhere you brought up health professionals and psychiatrists. Yes a lot of things are considered to be deviant. And homosexuality is viewed as not being a cultural norm within American society overall. The society itself gets to determine what is acceptable and not acceptable. You guys have been defeated twice in Cali, maybe this is a hint that it's not acceptable?
If we got rid of everything that is not a "cultural norm", then we'd have no culture to speak of. We'd be one, giant, monolithic mass of sameness.
I don't understand why you would want to eliminate something simply by virtue of it not being part of a majority, anyway. Sociologists don't apply any sort of moral significance to it, why are you?
It's not me that defines what is socially acceptable and what is not, but society itself, besides 2 states gay marriage isn't really accepted on a grand scale in the USA. Maybe a city here and there and a state or 2.
The thing about deviance is that it changes over time. And same sex unions has been somewhat accepted. Gays already have civil unions in Cali and all the rights and responsibilities that regular married couples have.
I don't believe in state-regulated marriage, period.I believe the governnment should issue only licenses for civil unions-for both straights and gays-and leave it up to private organizations like churches to decide wheather or not to sanctify a union of two people as a "marriage".
The best solution:A complete separation of marriage and state for the same reason we separate church and state.
If marriage is a priviledge and not a right,then leave it up to private organizations like churches to extend that priviledge to whomever they please,gay or straight.That way gays wouldn't have to worry about legal discrimination,and those opposed to homosexuality wouldn't have to worry about the government endorsing something they consider sinful.
So, let me get this right, we should abolish a multi-millennial old institution to satisfy a small powerful group of people who are not 'getting their way'? It sounds too much like 'if we can't marry then no one can marry'. This screams of selfishness.
So,let me get this right,we should abolish a multi-millennial old institution to satisfy a small powerful group who are not getting 'getting thier way'? It sounds too much like 'if we can't marry then no one can marry'.This screams of selfishness.
When did I say that marriage should be abolished? It should be privatized as so many other institutions alleged conservatives want to turn over to the private sector.After all,what is more intensely private and personal as marriage?
You are appealing to tradition, which is a common logical fallacy. Just because something has been a certain way for a long period of time does not mean it is right, or that it cannot be changed or modified.
So yes, we should modify our traditional understanding of marriage to accommodate our same-sex oriented members of society. They are adults, it is consensual. There is no harm. What is wrong with it?
The U.S. Supreme court denied a brother and sister in 2005 from getting married. That brother and sister wanted to get married by saying that their relationship was consensual. It was shot down. The gays are afraid of taking it to the US supreme court because that argumetn is very similar to the incest argument.
Incest and homosexuality have nothing in common. Comparing the two is ridiculous. There are obvious reasons why incest is discouraged, which have to do with the genetic and congenital problems in offspring produced by incestuous relationships.
Not that that discouraged Lot (the most righteous man in Sodom, according to Genesis) from sleeping with his daughters. LOL
Actually homosexuality and incest has something in common. They're both considered to be biologically unsound, not to mention that sociologists has determined it to be in the realm of deviance. Seems like one of the social sciences and the physical sciences are against homosexuality. By the way don't bring up the bible strawman argument, it doesn't work on people who believe in science and logic.
John J. Macionis. Sociology 12th edition. All of the book's content has been peer reviewed. That's one source which is backed up by other sociologists. That is the book for students that are taking sociology for general ed. My cousin is a freshman in a university. Now you provide me with one source that there is a gay gene.
If the supporters of prop 8 want to protect marriage,then they should forget about gays,a group which constitutes a small percentage of the population,and concentrate thier efforts on outlawing marriage for those to whom frequent divorce has become a virtual lifestyle.
But you won't find many religious people addressing that issue,because to do so would call into question the rights and the validity of the marriages of more than half the christian conservatives in the country.
Although gays make up a very small %-like 1%-of society, they constitute a powerful lobby that has sought to change the definition of marriage. And, in CA, CN, MA have been successful.
No-fault divorce is another problem and a big one you are right. I would love to see no-fault divorce be taken off of the books.
That will perhaps be the next legal battle once marriage is secured as only being between one man and one woman.
More like 12% - 13% of any given population, but it depends on how you define homosexuality. There have always been homosexuals, and always will be. They are a minority, and did not choose their sexual orientation. They should not be subject to the whims of the heterosexual majority. Let them marry each other. What's wrong with it.
That's kind of funny, from peer reviewed scientific journals I've read it says the real percentage of gays is only 2-4 percent of the population not the so called 10-20 percent that the media has trumped.
Rights in the U.S. proceed from a social contract. This fundamental to any egalitarian society.
Catholicism is inherently unAmerican in as much as it is opposed to civil equality and constitutional law. It is, in every sense, the enemy of an Open Society as cited by Popper.
Hmmm, I think you must be thinking of France during the French Revolution-social contract indeed! With all due respect, you seem to lack a sense of history of this country as well as the history of the Catholic contribution to civil society, most pointedly to the poor and disenfranchised. Only 10 years ago I worked with Catholic nuns taking care of transgender ADIS patients who were shunned by the mainstream homosexual community. Social contracts fail without underlying moral fabric.
"Natural Law" has no place in the American system of jurisprudence. American isn't a Catholic theocracy and keeping America from becoming one is a greater issue than marriage itself. The opposition to such tyranny is an ideal I would both die and kill for.
Natural law is not rooted in Catholic theology but rather in the origins of civilization-take a look at Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. And another thing, of course our system of jurisprudence is based on natural law. Where did you ever get the idea it wasn't? Thirdly, no one is proposing any type of theocracy Catholic or otherwise. Finally, the Catholic Church through her schools, hospitals etc (serving anyone in need) has been an integral part of American society from day one-hardly tyranny.
religous people. you can not win this one. Think of the group. the states job is to decides whats fair for the group. they do not decide what's fair for single religons. it's about everyone, not just you.
Well said - it IS about everyone, not just YOU. If, as you say, 'you win this one', and marriage is redefined, what will follow is an interference of the state in ALL of our personal lives that is unprecedented. That is totalitarianism. Be forewarned, remember this exchange when open homosexualtiy is no longer tolerated. Although I do not agree with your lifestyle I respect and will defend your right to exist. Someday I fear that you will no longer have even that right. Think historically.
As long as we continue to honor the wishes of the founding fathers and our constitution stands.Gay people will not have to hide and run from anyone.Historically you are half correct.Since the time that Christianity has gained popularity homosexuals have had a very difficult time to say the least
I disagree with your religious beliefs however I respect the constitution and your right to exist as well.."The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." - George Washington
On the contrary, only a society that values the inalienable right to life of each person (i.e. a judeo-christian based society) can guarantee freedom. You conflate freedom with privilege. Try being openly-homosexual and remain alive/free in Morocco, Iran, China, Russia or Cuba to name a few. SSM undermines the foundation of a free society because it undermines marriage and by extension the family which is the cell of society. Again, I urge you to look to history-go back 3-4,000 years.
We do not live in those other countries! My concern is this country and the freedoms and EQUALITY that The Constitution guarantees to every American. The constitution is very clear EQUALITY for everyone..... It did not say "equality for everyone except those people over there". The bottom line is when this goes to court gay people are likely to prevail because when religion is taken out of the process all one can fall back on is The Constitution.
"SSM undermines the foundation of a free society because it undermines marriage and the by extension the family which is the cell of society"
Marriage is not the basic building block of familiy and society,the individual is.
America was founded to protect individual rights and liberties,not to protect ideal definions of terms like "marriage" in the minds of traditionalists by restricting the rights and liberties of individuals.
The unchecked pursuit of individual rights at the expense of the common good of society has always led to totalitarianism. The family is the basic building block of free society because it exists as a subsidiary of society. A society that looks to the individual as the basic building block is by definition a Totalitarian society. I don't think you would like that type of system.
"Totalitarianism" is where the state regulates every aspect of public and private life. North Korea would be an example. Please explain how the pursuit of individual rights leads to a totalitarian state.
I ask because the US was founded on the concept of individual rights. The Constitution outlines individual rights within the Bill of Rights. So your assertion that "the pursuit of individual rights has always led to totalitarianism" certainly needs some support, or at least clarification.
Hopefully gay people will contine to fight for equality because this is a constitutional matter not a religious matter. I respect religion but I am first an foremost AN AMERICAN.Thomas Jefferson saw the threat of religion to this country and that is why the constitution guarantees EQUALITY for EVERY AMERICAN.(Jefferson Bible) While he classified himself as a christian healso declared the tyrany of religion and insisted that we should not allow religion to IN ANY WAY determine RIGHTS and policy.
Fight away because The constitution is very clear. EQUALITY is guaranteed to EVERY AMERICAN. Not just christians. So hopefully this goes to the courts soon so gay people will be granted thr constitutional rights.
Typical of anti 8 supporters to keep using religion. Just sad that you can't accept the vote so you become more violent and hateful by the day. Your not fighting, your forcing and prop 8 supporters will keep fighting back. Equality, you abuse that word. Constitutional rights.. How funny.. The cause is so weak because no good reason has been stated as why we should accept gay marriage so you cling to what you can. Keep spreading the hate. It's what your all about.
How about the benfits of marriage! There are over a thousand..... pensions, taxes, health benefits, transfer of property just to name a few. The constitution protects everyone(even the minority) and provides EQUALITY for all. How about we just strip all married couples of thr marriage benefits? That way religion gets to keep marriage and EQUALITY still prevails. Is that the best solution for you? You would make our founding fathers weep with your disregard for this countries foundation. EQUALITY
The United States of America is not just a democracy it is a constitutional democracy What that means is that our government is designed to express not onlythe will of the majority (democracy) but also to simultaneously protect the unalienable rights ofminorities and the powerless That isan extremely important point because it is the constitutional protections of minorities and the powerless that add civility humanity and decency to what could otherwise bea barbaric nation democratic or not.
Hey women: how did you like not being able to vote earlier last century? How do you like making 85% of the average male wage? Hey blacks, how did you like segregation pre-1964? How do you like being 10 times+ more likely to be labeled as a criminal? It is time to put a stop to discrimination justified by religion. Religious liberty has nothing to do with gay rights. They will still be able to practice their beliefs just as before (punto).
miljo34 2 months ago
Ok, 2 things here. 1. How exactly does this hurt children again? You mean *gasp* they might actually grow up and NOT spread hate? They might actually learn about alternative life styles instead of being shocked by it when they leave their parents? Apparently it is bad to educate our kids. Great argument.
2. It's funny how Christian conservatives have a problem re-defining marriage, but NO PROBLEM re-defining RAPE. (They passed HR3, didn't they?)
tra1215 2 months ago
Marriage has been redefined many, many, MANY times, and if we are doing it again, for the better.
TellingItLikeItIsSJM 6 months ago
" You don't get pick who you fall in love with it just happens "
jte2457 6 months ago
Religion: Social and politcal control through lying. Bigotry personified
Pilgrim812 11 months ago
The sappy, self-important background music comments nicely on the ignorance and self-righteousness that pervades this video. Well done.
timboytx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We have thousands of profiles about girls naneedj.info
sindianyubd 1 year ago
"No State has the authority to deny children their fundamental right to both a mother and a father."
That's right! DOWN WITH SINGLE PARENTING!!1!one!
So, has Massachusetts collapsed yet?
No? Well, isn't that interesting...
TheVVanderingStar 1 year ago
@TheVVanderingStar What makes you think that States don't have the right to do what they want? History has definately tought us that when it suits them they will take away our rights whenever they damn well please. When Japanesse Americans were locked up in camps in WWII they had the right to not be unjustly imprisoned but they were denied that right at a time when they needed it the most and the government just took them away. Rights are not rights if someone can just take them away.
amayagab 1 year ago
sense when is it the schools job to teach about marriage and sex?
"contrary to parents of these children who have diffrent views"- wait you mean some parents dislike the idea of equality?
and sense when does the child have to have the same views as their parents
AceofDimonds0 1 year ago
Were all going to look back one day and cringe at the Bigotry........
brianh406 1 year ago
"the state doesn't have the control to deny ..children a mother and a father..."
no the families deny them that already
I was raised by just a mother
no father what so ever, just a mother
the state didn't take that away, and the state never has taken away that "fundamental right"
the families have, and according to the American Psychoanalytic Association, these children, including myself, were raised normally and became mentally normal adults... so let's not make anymore hasty generalizations
aaronallyParadox 2 years ago
You denying us marriage....does not stop us from having children and forming families. You cant stop that! What you are doing it child abuse to our children. The equal protection clause is on our side. Stop the ignorance. Stop the hate. Stop the bigotry. LOVE one another.
MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR ALL!
neenerpuss 2 years ago 7
No one is denying a child a mother and a father. Biology makes sure that happens. But as any adopted child will tell you biology does NOT make a family. LOVE makes a family. Gay people have families too. By denying gay people the right to marry you are only hurting children in gay families. Our love is no less.
MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR ALL!
neenerpuss 2 years ago
If we didn't redefine marriage black people wouldn't be able to marry white people, 16 states had that on the book in 1967, the parents of the current president would not have been allowed to marry in nearly 1/3 of the country their son grew up to lead and no matter how you feel about his politics is not the issue.
amayagab 2 years ago 10
Actually, the comparison to the ban on interracial marriage is flawed. Imposing an unnatural limit on marriage based on skin color actually 'redefined' marriage; removing the ban restored marriage to its natural state - between one man and one woman.
mm2kids 2 years ago
You use the word natural as if homosexuality didn't exist in nature and it only happens with humans but that is not the case. And my argument is not flawed, the way you think it is between one man and one woman was the way during and before the 60's that it was between one white man and one white woman where in reality it is between two consenting adults.
amayagab 2 years ago 2
Homosexuality is an aberration of nature - a species cannot continue if the norm, that is, what is natural to it, is homosexuality because of course it cannot reproduce itself. This is not a derogatory statement simply one of fact.
Furthermore, the existence of homosexuality does not deem it natural (although persons are to be respected). With very few exceptions, the millennia long definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
mm2kids 2 years ago
Homosexuality hurts no one, so how is it a sin? And this mother and father crap in this vid? One word- single parenting. This world is hitting a huge population issue, and a lot of those kids are being abondoned and abused. If anything, those kids grow up in a loving home that they would otherwise live without. I really do think that God loves all of His children, gay or straight, and that if He makes you gay, he wants you to live gay. This is an example of man ignorantly assuming we know God.
bookcreator 2 years ago
@bookcreator
It is a perverted mental illness that leads to AIDS.
ma7799 1 year ago
So are you saying your for removing the ban on same sex marriage that the Christian church implementing in 316 AD and return it to it's original state where homosexuals could freely marry?
ibspify 2 years ago
@amayagab
That is difference of race; it does not redefine marriage itself.
ma7799 1 year ago
@ma7799 Back then it certainly did. Their version of marriage was a white entitlement therefor by making it legal for blacks to marry redefined the definition of marriage at the time.
amayagab 1 year ago
I've been married for 35 years
to my best friend, lover, and wife.
It's been the greatest joy of my life
and I want everyone to have that opportunity.
I live in Canada, where gay marriage is perfectly legal,
and I assure you that gay marriage has not cost me a thing.
Gay marriage has not diminished my marriage one bit.
I hope many, many gay people AND straight people
experience the stability and refuge and joy
that marriage has brought to my life.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago 2
I love these videos. Thanks for putting the effort into making them. I was involved in the p8 fight in California, and am still a staunch marriage defender. I had never seen these clips before. I'm not Catholic, but the truth is the same across the board on this one. Thanks for the simple clarity!
beetlebabee 2 years ago
Thank you!
mm2kids 2 years ago
No one can promise ANY child a mother AND a father. People die, people split up, rapists impregnate women, abusers impregnate women, men get sent to war, women get sent to war. There are no guarantees in life. Any child who has any number of people who love them and are concerned with their well being is blessed.
MidnyteGarden 3 years ago
You wrote: Any child who has any number of people who love them and are concerned with their well being is blessed.
Where this is true, we don't call it marriage. True, there are no guarantees mom and dad won't die, etc. however gay 'marriage' guarantees that either mom or dad won't be there. That's no okay - and society has a responsibility to protect kids rights to a mom and a dad wherever possible.
mm2kids 2 years ago
@mm2kids What about orphaned children?If society has responsibilities to give kids parents whenever possible, shouldn't we be leaping at the fact of gay parents giving love and a home to children? They have no parents, and if you let gays marry, maybe they would get parents. So what if they are gay parents, gay parents are better then no parents! Would you rather them live alone in an orphanage with no parents or them to live a happy, successful life with gay parents.
Litmanfamily 8 months ago
We redefine or update words all the time. Haven't we updated "All men are created equal"? When it was written all men were defined as white men. It certainly did not include women. The question is should we redefine the 1st amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Maybe creating gay couples is God's way of keeping our exploding population under control? Maybe it is perfectly natural?
williamfoxx33 3 years ago
Comment removed
williamfoxx33 3 years ago
Animals known to engage in Homosexuality continued 4: Moor Macaque, Moose, Mountain Goat, Mountain Tree Shrew, Mountain Zebra, Mouse (domestic), Moustached Tamarin, Mule Deer, Musk-ox, Natterer's Bat, New Zealand Sea Lion, Nilgiri Langur, Noctule, North American Porcupine, Northern Elephant Seal, Northern Fur Seal, Northern Quoll, Olympic Marmot, Orangutan, Orca, Pacific Striped Dolphin, Patas Monkey, Pere David's Deer, Pig (Domestic), Pig-tailed Macaque, Plains Zebra, Polar Bear.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
Animals known to engage in Homosexuality continued 3: Harbor Seal, Himalayan Tahr, Hoary Marmot, Horse (domestic), Human, Indian Fruit Bat, Indian Muntjac, Indian Rhinoceros, Japanese Macaque, Javelina, Kangaroo Rat, Killer Whale, Koala, Kob, Larga Seal, Least Chipmunk, Lechwe, Lesser Bushbaby, Lion, Lion-tailed Macaque, Lion Tamarin, Little Brown Bat, Livingstone's Fruit Bat, Long-eared Hedgehog, Long-footed Tree Shrew, Macaque, Markhor, Marten, Matschie's Tree Kangaroo, Moco, Mohol Galago.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
Animals known to engage in Homosexuality continued 2: Eastern Cottontail Rabbit, Eastern Grey Kangaroo, Elk, Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo), European Bison, Fallow Deer, False Killer Whale, Fat-tailed Dunnart, Fin Whale, Fox, Gazelle, Gelada Baboon, Giraffe, Goat (Domestic), Golden Monkey, Gorilla, Grant's Gazelle, Grey-headed Flying Fox, Grey Seal, Grey squirrel, Grey Whale, Grey Wolf, Grizzly Bear, Guinea Pig (Domestic), Hamadryas Baboon, Hamster (Domestic), Hanuman Langur, Harbor Porpoise.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
Animals known to engage in Homosexuality continued: Brown Long-eared Bat, Brown Rat, Buffalo, Caribou, Cat (domestic), Cattle (domestic), Cheetah, Collared Peccary, Commerson's Dolphin, Common Brushtail Possum, Common Chimpanzee, Common Dolphin, Common Marmoset, Common Pipistrelle, Common Raccoon, Common Tree Shrew, Cotton-top Tamarin, Crab-eating Macaque, Crested Black Macaque, Cui, Dall's Sheep, Daubenton's Bat, Dog (domestic), Doria's Tree Kangaroo, Dugong, Dwarf Cavy, Dwarf Mongoose.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
Animals known to engage in homosexuality: African Buffalo, African Elephant, Agile Wallaby, Amazon River Dolphin, American Bison, Antelope, Asian Elephant, Asiatic Lion, Asiatic Mouflon, Atlantic Spotted Dolphin, Australian Sea Lion, Barasingha, Barbary Sheep, Beluga, Bharal, Bighorn Sheep, Black Bear, Blackbuck, Black-footed Rock Wallaby, Black-tailed Deer, Bonnet Macaque, Bonobo, Bottlenose Dolphin, Bowhead Whale, Brazilian Guinea Pig, Bridled Dolphin, Brown Bear, Brown Capuchin,
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
Marriage was originally between one man and many women. Marriage is a legal document they can keep their stupid ass bible holy bullshit to themselves and we'll keep the legal part. This is such a blatantly religious argument, I wish they would just admit that they hate gay people. All they can get is priests to come on their videos, how come their aren't any social scientists? CUZ THEY DON'T AGREE WITH YOU AND YOU ARE WRONG!
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
Thank you for your post. I am sorry you perceive us as hating gay people. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Catholic Church has been the largest caregiver to people with AIDS. I know because I volunteered for several years at an AIDS hospice (in the height of the epidemic) here in SF with Mother Teresa's sisters. Those men knew they were loved and I am so thankful for the opportunity to have shared my life with them before they died. I hope that helps you understand who we are.
mm2kids 3 years ago
That's not really the point. The point is that marriage really is legal and not religious, but all I see is religious arguments. I want a real reason why same-sex couples can't get married is all.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
True, however you leveled a charge that it's really about us 'hating gays' and I was answering that charge. You said that marriage is not about kids but actually the only reason the State has an interest in regulating marriage is because of its stake in the next generation. This is only possible between a man and a woman. The State has no interest in anyone marrying who they love.
mm2kids 3 years ago
I meant marriage has nothing to do in the fact that children aren't involved in all marriages. Shouldn't people who can't have kids be banned from marriage too, or elderly couples? It doesn't make sense, marriage is first and foremost a legal document providing spouses (not children) with rights. So I don't see why same-sex couples can't have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
Actually that is exactly what marriage is NOT - a legal document. If that is the totality of your understanding of what marriage is, then why does it matter if the state recognizes it or not? Domestic partner laws are legal documents that afford all of the legal rights and privileges of a marriage license? So why insist on marriage?
mm2kids 3 years ago
Why can't SS couples marry? Because when you redefine marriage you must as a matter of course deconstruct that which is already there. Marriage is the basic cell of our society and children depend on its stability for their well-being. If it is deconstructed then chidlren pay the price. Look at the Netherlands-because of SSM, hetero couples now rarely marry. 60% of 1st children are born out of wedlock and 80% of subsequent children. How can this be good not only for children, but for any of us?
mm2kids 3 years ago
Also who care whether heterosexual couples marry or not? That's their choice. Marriage is a legal right, denying homosexuals that right is discrimination. Also Two men or two women are perfectly capable of raising a child, just look at the research.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
1) The fabric of our society is dependent on stable families. If heterosexual people stop marrying then that stability is jeopardized. Kids pay the price. You may not care but I care. 2) There is no legal right to marry anyone you choose. The 'discrimination battle cry' is growing very old and tired. 3) There is no research that supports same-sex 'parenting'. To the contrary, people raised by homosexual parents are beginning to speak out against same-sex marriage.
mm2kids 3 years ago
It takes a lot to convince me, do you have data? I have read studies of children raised by same-sex couples and the children do just as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples. Also you seem to not know your facts in that Domestic Partnerships do not offer all the same legal protection as Marriage. Also Domestic Partnerships are not recognized in most places. Yes, you're right, there is no legal right to marry ANYONE you choose, but denying two consenting adults that right is wrong.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
1) Can you give me the citation to those studies? 2)In California the Domestic Partner Act dictated that DPs must be allowed the same legal rights and privileges that marriage affords. 3) What if those two consenting adults are already married? Or maybe they are first cousins - should this be allowed? Isn't this discrimination?
mm2kids 3 years ago
I can probably find you them. Still Domestic Partnership is not the same as marriage so it still discriminates no matter what. What if they said that interracial couples can marry but they have to call it something else (civil union, domestic partnership), people would be sickened. As for relatives marrying, that is ridiculous because that is incest which illegal and this has nothing to do with incest. There are limits, and incest is beyond that limit.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
1) Please do send them along-thank you. 2)How are domestic partnerships different if by your definiton marriage is just a legal document not attached to responsibilities relating to children? 3) The comparison of a lifestyle choice (based on sexual orientation)to bans on interracial marriage (based on skin color) is offensive to African-americans who have suffered true discrimination because of the color of their skin.
mm2kids 3 years ago
I don't honestly give a shit what offends African-Americans, Homosexuals do not have a choice either. You obviously think homosexuals "choose" to be that way, which is insanity. If you could would you choose to black if slavery was still legal. Why would anyone choose a life where pretty much of society hates them, it doesn't make sense. Also You know as well as I do that incest and homosexuality are two totally different and unrelated things and cannot be compared.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
I was not comparing incestuous relationships to homosexual relationships by their content. My question to you is, if we decide that ANY two consenting adults who love each other should be able to marry, how can you say that first cousins shouldn't be able to marry without it being a case of unjust discrimination? What are the grounds for your argument?
mm2kids 3 years ago
Incest is illegal which is a good starter. By law the person you marry (even in same-sex couples) cannot be a close relative.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
I don't actually think that it is illegal to have a sexual relationship with a first cousin but I'll need to check. Regardless it seems that the legality or illegality of the act is your premise on whether or not it is unjust discrimination. What if sodomy became illegal again? Would forbidding same-sex marriage no longer be unjust discrimination in your mind?
mm2kids 3 years ago
I'm pretty certain incest is illegal so please do get back to me on that. Homosexuality is a legitimate orientation such as heterosexuality and bisexuality, but incest is not.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
How do you decide what is legitimate? According to natural law only heterosexual orientations are natural. So, what is your criteria for legitimate? How can bisexuality be an orientation when it encompases both heterosexuality and homosexuality? Do you think that people are born bisexual? How does that make sense if you believe that the homosexually orientated person is unable to change?
mm2kids 3 years ago
No, look at the animal kingdom, there are many animals known to engage in homosexuality. Therefore it is natural since animals don't really choose things. With bisexuality it's being attracted to both sexes so really it's an orientation all by itself. Actually my general opinion on sexual orientation is that every human is bisexual, whether they express it or not.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
Which animals engage in homosexuality? And, is that natural to the species? Natural law is defied in homosexual acts. Simply put, a rectum is not a sexual organ, it's an organ for excreting bodily waste. Treating it like a sexual organ results in many diseases-not just AIDS-that shortens the lives (of those who engage in this act consistently) by decades. Regardless of a person's orientation, engaging in this act is a violation of nature. The person is not bad, but the act is unnatural.
mm2kids 3 years ago
I never claimed that anal sex was natural. You're wrong about it shortening life span, that was a myth that has been dispelled. You are right about the AIDS and other diseases though. I will get you a list of the animals known to engage in homosexuality. Anyway my point is homosexuality is natural but not anal sex.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
If anal sex is not natural, how can homosexuality which expresses itself sexually(in men) via anal sex, be natural? It is NO myth this shortens a person's lifespan. I have worked in ERs & hospices and have seen the bodily results of a lifetime of sodomy. It is so heartbreaking to see how the dignity of the human body has been degraded. I've seen far too much to be swayed by activism & doctored social science. This is not a lifestyle that is good for anyone & I want the best for my fellowman.
mm2kids 3 years ago
Not all homosexual men engage in anal sex. Having anal sex does not cause a shorter life span but it does put you at higher risk for Sexually Transmitted Diseases. I don't see how you can call it a lifestyle, they are just born that way, there is no choice.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago
Also it is there sex lives and really no one else's business.
TragicKingdom15 3 years ago 2
your intentions are good....
it's just frightening that you can not see how harmful they are.
Gay people will exist until the end of the human race. there is no converting to heterosexuality....only repression. Asking someone to repress love? it hurts.
i know one day it will truly become clear.
Happy Holidays to all!
Jakeof5 3 years ago
4) The premise for SSM is that people should be able to marry whoever they want-how would you draw a clear line that excludes some people who want to marry a relative? You can't fall back on 'societal norms' or 'natural law' because your premise of equal protection has already eliminated those arguments as justification for limiting marriage between only one man and one woman.
mm2kids 3 years ago
lol...they just contradicted themselves. Yes the state has nothing to do with defining yourself...so if the state allows gay marriage...it doesn't mean you'd have to marry someone of the same sex! And YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT marriage IS defined by family....because MY family defines marriage as the union of ANY couple who wish to commit to be together. My religion does not think less of people because they are gay. What about MY religious freedom? What about my church's religious freedom?
yo1o2eggs 3 years ago
Your church doesn't have the right or authority to redefine the bible and it's teachings. Some of the congregation is putting pressure on the church to allow gays as clergy. This is not biblical. Timothy states that a deacon must be of the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and household well. There are standards and guidelines to hold a position in the church. People who have sin such as adultry and homosexualty in their lives shouldn't be candidates.
marizpan22 3 years ago
YOUR BIBLE HAS BEEN REDEFINED COUNTLESS TIMES. I don't believe in YOUR bible. YOUR bible was not written by Jesus. other people wrote it in Arameic it has been translated and interpreted for you. Jesus NEVER wrote a word. These people can't even agree on the YOUR bible up to now. If so, there would have been peace between Muslims, Jews and Christians...they ALL believe in YOUR god. But JESUS can't even inspire peace between the Orthodox Greeks & Armenians. Know Jesus NO peace.
yo1o2eggs 3 years ago
Wow! You sound SO angry. I know PEACE, I know Christ.. I have both in my life. I can't convince you and will not try. Doesn't sound like you anywhere close to listening anyway. Lighten up please!
marizpan22 3 years ago
you bet I'm angry. I'm angry at Christian hypocracy. Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Teg Haggard, Tony Alamo and Pat Robertson. All Christian ought to protest war, the military, death row and any institution that teaches you to kill and hate. But no, they protest against LOVE. If I love someone of the same sex it's cause for donations in campaigning against it. But where are those donation for Tibet, Myanmar or Malawi. Where is the love where is the peace?
yo1o2eggs 3 years ago
You can't expect a christian nation to condone homosexuality. It's against our moral fiber. I will fight against it as hard as you fight for it. It's actually hypocracy to condone such acts.
marizpan22 3 years ago
That's the hypocrisy I'm talking about. You fight against homosexuality but you don't fight against killing. CHRISTIANITY CONDONE KILLING not loving. It's against YOUR moral fabric to love. You need to look into yourself as to the reason why you are so against this. ME THINKS DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH.
yo1o2eggs 3 years ago
I don't protest enough! I am tired of christians standly by and getting thrown under the bus. All in the name of LOVE! Bull. Don't throw the " you guys are all just supposed to LOVE" stuff my way. Yes, we are called to love the sinner but hate the sin. Fight against the sin. By the way, WE are all sinners. I am not pointing fingers here. But at least I call a spade a spade and not roll over on principles because it's uncomfortable now and again.
marizpan22 3 years ago
You can look at like this...I love my children. I would literally die for anyone of them. However, I do require them to behave in a morally and responsible way. When they don't there are consequences.
marizpan22 3 years ago
Hmmm...if they decide to join the military and learn to kill, you'd be all for it. But if they happen to be gay, all hell will break loose. Your morality would allow them to kill but won't allow them to love. That is Christian value. That is Christian morality.
yo1o2eggs 3 years ago
Billy Graham said it best...a child would need even more love. Don't presume to know me and make statements on my behalf. No way would I ever disown a child of mine. You come across with such accusations that are not even true. You might want to work on your "love thing" a bit with all people.
marizpan22 3 years ago
oh...was I wrong? You would protest against the military? You wouldn't want them to join the police to learn how to kill? And you would also let them be homosexuals if they were? I have nothing against the military or the police because my beliefs do not exclude killing for self-defense. But yours does.
yo1o2eggs 3 years ago
"Danger in re-defining marriage"? If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white. Sixteen States had laws which made that illegal in 1967! It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad history of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized for slaves. Since they were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, nor mother and child. U know? just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.
astoria30001 3 years ago
Gay marriage does not have anything to do with whether a child has a mother or father or not. There will always be kids without a mother and a father because of death divorce, or single parent homes. Gays can already adopt children whether they have a marriage or not. The kids who live in orphanages are already without parents and would be lucky to be adopted by anyone that would give them love and care for them. Children could care less if gays were allowed to get married or not.
underdawg47 3 years ago
I think you miss the point. If two men are acting as 'dad' and 'papa' to a child, where's the mother? In single parent homes etc everyone understands that a parent is missing-not so with same-sex adoptive parents who equate their relationship with marriage between a man and a woman (which naturally provides children with a mother and father). The children being adopted by gays are rarely the ones languishing in orphanages. Looking around (in SF) there are a lot of babies being given to gays.
mm2kids 3 years ago
So you're saying that two men or two women can't provide a child with love and affection the same way that a man/woman couple can? It seems to me that your real point is that gays are inferior parents to straights, and that gay parents are worse just because both sexes aren't present.
KBakura 3 years ago
Exactly, two men or two women cannot give a child what a mother and a father can give a child. And yes a same-sex couple is ontologically inferior to a mother and father when it comes to being a mother and a father to a child. It is something they simply cannot provide. It not a question of capacity to love; children need love but they also need the complimentary love that can only come from a mother and a father.
mm2kids 3 years ago
Okay, so why would you say that only a mother and father couple can give a child the right kind of complimentary upbringing? Why do you propose that a same-sex couple is inferior?
KBakura 3 years ago
By definition a "SAME"-sex couple cannot provide sexual complimentarity to the upbringing of a child. It is not a matter of inferiority or superiority with regard to the individual dignity of the homosexual person, it is simply impossible for two dads or two moms to give a child a mother and a father, and in that respect a same-sex couple is ontologically inferior when it comes to parenting. This is a discrimination of nature and reality and can only be "changed" by altering reality.
mm2kids 3 years ago
Of course, every straight couple with kids is doing greeeat. If you think about it, a gay couple who adopt a kid are more likely to truly want the child than some straight couple who accidentally got pregnant — but by your definition, the same-sex couple would be worse for the child. Additionally, if that's your reason for concern, marriage is irrelevant; a same-sex couple can adopt and raise a child whether or not they are married.
KBakura 3 years ago
Yes that is true, a same-sex couple cannot provide a child their mother and father. Let's not compare an "ideal" homosexual situation to a bad heterosexual situation and then call it a fair comparison. A same-sex home is never ideal for a child. Although it is true that any unmarried person can adopt, I would like to see that change. I've seen far too many children paraded around amongst the pornography and S&M demos at the SF gay pride parade to believe kids are better off in these 'families'.
mm2kids 3 years ago
You guys know why you lost at the ballot? You guys just ticked off way too many people, especially the minorities and certain events that lead up to it. I was actually indifferent to gay marriage up till this year. You guys went about it the wrong way and just ticked off the minorities and people that were indifferent to the issue altogether. And let's be honest now, not everyone that is against gay marriage is a religious nut, homophobic or a jerk. There's more to it.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
No, the reason that "we" lost is that ignorance, intolerance and homophobia are depressingly rampant throughout much of society today, particularly among minorities, unfortunately.
It isn't surprising that blacks and Hispanics, who tend to be less educated than whites as a whole, and are much more traditionally Christian as a culture than are whites, should have voted the way they did.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Traditionally Christian part for the Latinos and blacks I can agreed. But what anger the blacks more was that the pro-gay marriage side kept on comparing their movement to the Civil Rights movement, which is completely out of place and not even in the same historical context. BTW, the majority of Asians were against gay marriage and many of them are educated, many of the Japanese-Americans didnt like the gays using the internment camps for their cause.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
I think they use the Civil Rights movement as an example because it is the most comparable event in recent memory. The entire concept that motivated the Civil Rights movement was one of equality. Blacks recognized they were being unjustifiable discriminated against.
Gays have likewise long recognized that they, as a group, are being unjustifiably discriminated against.
Blacks wanted change, and they fought for it. Gays want change, and they are fighting for it. The comparison is appropriate.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Yes, because we all know that gays were made slaves, counted as 1/4 as a person, lynched and killed on the streets daily at 1 time in the USA and had to suffer during the Jim Crow era, not to mentioned they were hosed with water and shot down like animals during the Civil Rights Movement, which they had no part in but decided to hijack that movement and made it as if they were a part of it.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
I think you're missing the point. No one is saying that gays share an identical history with African-Americans.
What we are saying is that gays have been unfairly discriminated against for far too long for no justifiable reason. This needs to change.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Another thing they hijacked was the Japanese Americans being interned and comparing it with their struggle in a NO on Prop 8 AD. That also ticked off lots of people. It's kind of funny that gays make fun and disrespect many ethnic minority groups, but when they need something they use other group's struggles and tried to put their struggle along with those groups to elicit sympathy. Rosie O Donnell comes to mind and Ellen Degeneres.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
I haven't heard anybody comparing gays' rights (or lack thereof) to Japanese internment camps.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Oh yeah, another thing with Gays saying that they're born that way, which is basically a lie. Peer reviewed scientific journals says that only 35% of one's genetics account for our sexuality, while 65% of one's own environmental factors account for our own sexuality. genes only play a modest role, but external factors play a dominant role. I would rather believe science than gays over any day. And these scientific journals were authored by people knowledgeable in these fields.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
LOL. You are an ignorant fool.
Please cite these journals you are referencing. Because your claim is not supported by the scientific community at large.
Again, it depends on how you are defining homosexuality, but estimates run from more than 1% to 10% or higher, some estimates at 13%. This is according to Kinsey 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Male', Janus Report on Sexual Behavior, and Hite Report on Male Sexuality, to name a few.
Please educate yourself.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
The Kinsey report today is considered badly flawed by the scientific community due to today's stringent scientific methods. You're citing a report that was done more than 50 years ago. Maybe you're the one that needs to be educated.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
LOL. You're saying the Kinsey report has been discredited by the scientific community?? Please provide your sources.
Do you even know what the Kinsey report is? It was a landmark study for its time, the first of its kind. Of course some methods of collecting data have been refined since then, but that does not in any way refute his findings. That's like saying Darwin's findings have been refuted by current data. LOL wow, you are dumber than I thought.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
The Kinsey report does not hold up to the stringent standards of the scientific methods used today. Here's an analogy. Physicians in the 60s commonly believed that acne and diet has no correlation and it was printed in the New England Journal of medicine. Today that report is considered to be flawed based on new studies that disproves it and stringently follows the scientific method. If you don't have anything of substance, don't engage in ad-homninen attacks.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
What exactly is refuted in the Kinsey reports, and who is refuting them.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
We don't know what determines sexual orientation, yet, (although there is evidence of genetic factors, as well as hormonal factors in utero), but health professionals are nearly unanimous in their opinion that the individual has little or no choice in their orientation. To call same-sex orientation a choice, or a "lifestyle", is extremely ignorant.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Actually we do have a pretty good idea. The latest peer review scientific journals will not be picked up by the liberal left wing media which is dominated by gays and their supporters, these reports goes against what they trumpet to be the truth. No modern day journal cites that 10-20 percent of the population being gay. At most 4% of the population. Even the gays don't want to seriously debate this , because this involves science not some religious book.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
Again, please cite your sources.
Your assertion that the media is "left wing", although commonly believed to be true by only the dumbest of conservatives, is entirely unfounded.
Please explain how the "left wing" media is "dominated by gays and their supporters" you paranoid freak.
It must suck to be a conservative in a world that progresses. Good news is, over time conservatives keep on losing.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Nice try, I'm not a conservative and I was actually for gay marriages at one point saying that if the gays aren't harming or pushing their views on anyone, then it's not my business. But you guys messed up by doing just that by pushing your views on other people and disrupting lives.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
Sure you were.
I don't know why you assume I'm gay, because I'm not.
Please explain how gays are pushing their views on you and disrupting you life.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
gays and their supporters have been adamant that one is born a homosexual and that genetics determine this.When there has been cases of thousands of identical twins being studied upon and researchers have found out that if one twin is gay the other has a 50% chance of not being gay.If homosexuality is determined by genetics then why isn't the other twin gay 100% of the time? Since identical twins share the same exact genetic material?the gays and their supporters don't want to go there
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
Wow, you really don't know what you are talking about.
Studies show that identical twins are *more likely* to share the same sexual orientation than other siblings, which supports the idea that there is a genetic basis for same-sex orientation.
And in 1993 the National Institute of Health found a stretch of DNA on the X chromosome that seemed to harbor one or more genes affecting sexual orientation.
Genetic experiments on fruit flies have yielded supportive evidence as well.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
No, you guys have asserted that homosexuality is purely genetic. ANd identical twins have the same exact genetic makeup. if that's the case then why is it half the time that only one twin is gay and not both of them? You can't explain it but make up lies and say both twins are gay or one's in the closet.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
Please show me where I stated homosexuality is "purely genetic".
Again, we do not know the cause of homosexuality, yet. There is some genetic evidence, but it is *not conclusive*. There are other theories as well.
What we do know is that it is not a choice.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
BTW, gays and their supporters have been saying that there is a gay gene. I would like to see a recent peer review scientific journal on this that supports the claim, as in within this year, not some report that was around 60 years old.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
I haven't heard anyone saying anything about a "gay gene", because the fact is, nothing of the sort has been discovered. There is genetic evidence, but it is not conclusive. So I don't know where you are getting this bad information.
There are other, non-genetic, theories as well. It would behoove you to actually study the issue before spouting your ignorant, offensive opinions everywhere. You look like an idiot.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Sorry you're avoiding your side's assertion by stating that one is born a homosexual and being adamant that a conclusion has been made. And many of you have asserted that there is a gay gene. So either put up or shut up. Remeber this I am a man of logic and science, not some religious nut. You guys have a tough battle to fight against the social and physical sciences as well.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
Health professionals haven't considered homosexuality to be a pathology in over 100 years. Where are you getting this information that homosexuality is considered a "sexual deviance".
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Sociologists as in social scienctists has determined it to be in the realm of deviance. Unless they are wrong, which I doubt.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
That's funny, the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which is basically the standard handbook used by psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychoanalysts, as well as other health professionals, does not consider homosexuality to be a disorder.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Ah! The classic strawman argument. I have never stated that sociologists considered it to be a mental disorder. So don't bring up what psychiatrists or psychologists said. Nice try. I stated that they as in sociologists considered it to be in the realm of deviance.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
LOL. So, psychologists and psychiatrists have no expertise in this area? But "sociologists" do?
Again, who are these sociologists you keep referring to.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Oh I don't know who these sociologists are, maybe Durkheim, Sutherland, Merton, and their theories on deviance. If you don't understand deviance, then maybe you should look it up. Homosexuality is considered to be deviant behavior within American society. I don't think I need to cite any sources that homosexuals are look upon as deviants and not accepted. And please don't cite places like SAN fran or Berekly.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
I think we all know what 'deviance' is. What I'm saying is that virtually no health professional or organization or educator uses that term.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Are we talking about health professionals or organizations that are pro gay? How about talking about sociologists that deemed it as deviance. Them, the social scientists termed it as deviance. So why do you keep on bringing up psychiatrists and health professionals? Why not try to bring up a sociologist that is pro gay to back up your argument that it is not considered deviant? But you can't because basically all of them view homosexuality as deviant behavior.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
"Sexual deviance", as you call it, has a clinical term. It is "paraphilia". Paraphilia was codified as a disorder in the DSM-IV in 1980, but the view of paraphilias as disorders is not universal.
Nowhere is homosexuality considered a paraphilia, or as a "sexual deviance", as you call it.
FYI no one in scientific circles uses terms like "sexual deviance". They speak in terms of disorders and pathologies.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
There we go with the strawman argument. Do you know what a strawman argument is? I said deviance, nor did I say anything about sexual deviance or psychology. If you don't understand what it means look it up. Sociology is what I refer to.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
Uh, yeah I think I know what a straw man fallacy is, considering I minored in philosophy and formally studied logic. Where did you learn what a straw man fallacy is? Some website? Might be awhile before you know how to properly identify it, judging by your previous posts.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Who are these sociologists and "social scientists" you keep referencing to back up your obnoxious point of view.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Again I'm getting a part of my information from sociologists as in dealing with sociology. And I already stated one of my sources. Where's yours besides the Kinsey Report? How about one that's not 60 years old? ANd We're not talking about psychology are we?
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
You cited an 'Intro to Sociology' college textbook. I highly doubt it contains what you claim, since such a view is not even remotely held by health professionals.
I don't know why you keep focusing on the Kinsey Report, since I already also cited the Janus Report, the Hite Report, and the DSM-IV.
Also you have not provided evidence of anyone refuting any information in the Kinsey Report. How does one refute interviews anyway? Criticism I can understand, but conclusive refutation? LOL
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Sociologist have all determined that homosexuality is deviance, but yet their wrong because they don't support your views while psychologists are considered to be more valid because they support your views? lol What about researchers in the realm of biology that don't support your views that homosexuality is just genetics? Environmental factors are the basis of 65% of one's sexuality and the dominant factor? lol What are you going to bring out a psychiatrist report to dispute biologists? lol
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
If by 'deviance' you mean an aberration of standard behavior within a cultural norm, then I guess you could call homosexuality a "deviance" by virtue of it being underrepresented compared to the heterosexual majority.
But by that standard, punk music is a deviance since only a minority of the population listens to that type of music.
Why you are attributing moral value to it is a mystery to me.
Why do you keep insisting that I claimed homosexuality orientation is genetic?
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Of course that's what I meant all along, but somehow and somewhere you brought up health professionals and psychiatrists. Yes a lot of things are considered to be deviant. And homosexuality is viewed as not being a cultural norm within American society overall. The society itself gets to determine what is acceptable and not acceptable. You guys have been defeated twice in Cali, maybe this is a hint that it's not acceptable?
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
If we got rid of everything that is not a "cultural norm", then we'd have no culture to speak of. We'd be one, giant, monolithic mass of sameness.
I don't understand why you would want to eliminate something simply by virtue of it not being part of a majority, anyway. Sociologists don't apply any sort of moral significance to it, why are you?
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
It's not me that defines what is socially acceptable and what is not, but society itself, besides 2 states gay marriage isn't really accepted on a grand scale in the USA. Maybe a city here and there and a state or 2.
The thing about deviance is that it changes over time. And same sex unions has been somewhat accepted. Gays already have civil unions in Cali and all the rights and responsibilities that regular married couples have.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
"Separate but equal" is not equal.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
If you're comparing the gay cause to Plessy VS. Ferguson, which is a false analogy and completely out of place.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
I'm not referring to the case specifically, but the reasoning behind it.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
I don't believe in state-regulated marriage, period.I believe the governnment should issue only licenses for civil unions-for both straights and gays-and leave it up to private organizations like churches to decide wheather or not to sanctify a union of two people as a "marriage".
loudnmouthy 3 years ago
The best solution:A complete separation of marriage and state for the same reason we separate church and state.
If marriage is a priviledge and not a right,then leave it up to private organizations like churches to extend that priviledge to whomever they please,gay or straight.That way gays wouldn't have to worry about legal discrimination,and those opposed to homosexuality wouldn't have to worry about the government endorsing something they consider sinful.
loudnmouthy 3 years ago
So, let me get this right, we should abolish a multi-millennial old institution to satisfy a small powerful group of people who are not 'getting their way'? It sounds too much like 'if we can't marry then no one can marry'. This screams of selfishness.
mm2kids 3 years ago
So,let me get this right,we should abolish a multi-millennial old institution to satisfy a small powerful group who are not getting 'getting thier way'? It sounds too much like 'if we can't marry then no one can marry'.This screams of selfishness.
When did I say that marriage should be abolished? It should be privatized as so many other institutions alleged conservatives want to turn over to the private sector.After all,what is more intensely private and personal as marriage?
loudnmouthy 3 years ago
So, if it's so intensely private, why do you need the state to recognize and validate your same-sex relationship?
mm2kids 3 years ago
You are appealing to tradition, which is a common logical fallacy. Just because something has been a certain way for a long period of time does not mean it is right, or that it cannot be changed or modified.
So yes, we should modify our traditional understanding of marriage to accommodate our same-sex oriented members of society. They are adults, it is consensual. There is no harm. What is wrong with it?
The real question is, why has it taken so long?
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
The U.S. Supreme court denied a brother and sister in 2005 from getting married. That brother and sister wanted to get married by saying that their relationship was consensual. It was shot down. The gays are afraid of taking it to the US supreme court because that argumetn is very similar to the incest argument.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
Incest and homosexuality have nothing in common. Comparing the two is ridiculous. There are obvious reasons why incest is discouraged, which have to do with the genetic and congenital problems in offspring produced by incestuous relationships.
Not that that discouraged Lot (the most righteous man in Sodom, according to Genesis) from sleeping with his daughters. LOL
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Actually homosexuality and incest has something in common. They're both considered to be biologically unsound, not to mention that sociologists has determined it to be in the realm of deviance. Seems like one of the social sciences and the physical sciences are against homosexuality. By the way don't bring up the bible strawman argument, it doesn't work on people who believe in science and logic.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
LOL. Wow... just... wow. One of us is basing our evidence on out-of-date data, but it ain't me.
Please provide one peer-reviewed study that says homosexuality is "deviant behavior" you bonehead. Nobody in the scientific community believes that.
If you really believed in science and logic, you wouldn't be holding these unjustified, non-scientific views.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
John J. Macionis. Sociology 12th edition. All of the book's content has been peer reviewed. That's one source which is backed up by other sociologists. That is the book for students that are taking sociology for general ed. My cousin is a freshman in a university. Now you provide me with one source that there is a gay gene.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
I never said there is a gay gene.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
If the supporters of prop 8 want to protect marriage,then they should forget about gays,a group which constitutes a small percentage of the population,and concentrate thier efforts on outlawing marriage for those to whom frequent divorce has become a virtual lifestyle.
But you won't find many religious people addressing that issue,because to do so would call into question the rights and the validity of the marriages of more than half the christian conservatives in the country.
Hypocrites.
loudnmouthy 3 years ago
Dear Loudnmouthy,
Although gays make up a very small %-like 1%-of society, they constitute a powerful lobby that has sought to change the definition of marriage. And, in CA, CN, MA have been successful.
No-fault divorce is another problem and a big one you are right. I would love to see no-fault divorce be taken off of the books.
That will perhaps be the next legal battle once marriage is secured as only being between one man and one woman.
Thanks for your post.
mm2kids 3 years ago
More like 12% - 13% of any given population, but it depends on how you define homosexuality. There have always been homosexuals, and always will be. They are a minority, and did not choose their sexual orientation. They should not be subject to the whims of the heterosexual majority. Let them marry each other. What's wrong with it.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago 2
That's kind of funny, from peer reviewed scientific journals I've read it says the real percentage of gays is only 2-4 percent of the population not the so called 10-20 percent that the media has trumped.
efjhsdjfasjf 3 years ago
Please cite these peer-reviewed journals. Thanks.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Rights in the U.S. proceed from a social contract. This fundamental to any egalitarian society.
Catholicism is inherently unAmerican in as much as it is opposed to civil equality and constitutional law. It is, in every sense, the enemy of an Open Society as cited by Popper.
radiofreerome 3 years ago
Hmmm, I think you must be thinking of France during the French Revolution-social contract indeed! With all due respect, you seem to lack a sense of history of this country as well as the history of the Catholic contribution to civil society, most pointedly to the poor and disenfranchised. Only 10 years ago I worked with Catholic nuns taking care of transgender ADIS patients who were shunned by the mainstream homosexual community. Social contracts fail without underlying moral fabric.
mm2kids 3 years ago
mm2kids,
"Natural Law" has no place in the American system of jurisprudence. American isn't a Catholic theocracy and keeping America from becoming one is a greater issue than marriage itself. The opposition to such tyranny is an ideal I would both die and kill for.
radiofreerome 3 years ago
Natural law is not rooted in Catholic theology but rather in the origins of civilization-take a look at Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. And another thing, of course our system of jurisprudence is based on natural law. Where did you ever get the idea it wasn't? Thirdly, no one is proposing any type of theocracy Catholic or otherwise. Finally, the Catholic Church through her schools, hospitals etc (serving anyone in need) has been an integral part of American society from day one-hardly tyranny.
mm2kids 3 years ago
religous people. you can not win this one. Think of the group. the states job is to decides whats fair for the group. they do not decide what's fair for single religons. it's about everyone, not just you.
dreamextreme7 3 years ago
Well said - it IS about everyone, not just YOU. If, as you say, 'you win this one', and marriage is redefined, what will follow is an interference of the state in ALL of our personal lives that is unprecedented. That is totalitarianism. Be forewarned, remember this exchange when open homosexualtiy is no longer tolerated. Although I do not agree with your lifestyle I respect and will defend your right to exist. Someday I fear that you will no longer have even that right. Think historically.
mm2kids 3 years ago
As long as we continue to honor the wishes of the founding fathers and our constitution stands.Gay people will not have to hide and run from anyone.Historically you are half correct.Since the time that Christianity has gained popularity homosexuals have had a very difficult time to say the least
I disagree with your religious beliefs however I respect the constitution and your right to exist as well.."The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." - George Washington
mikebr25 3 years ago
On the contrary, only a society that values the inalienable right to life of each person (i.e. a judeo-christian based society) can guarantee freedom. You conflate freedom with privilege. Try being openly-homosexual and remain alive/free in Morocco, Iran, China, Russia or Cuba to name a few. SSM undermines the foundation of a free society because it undermines marriage and by extension the family which is the cell of society. Again, I urge you to look to history-go back 3-4,000 years.
mm2kids 3 years ago
We do not live in those other countries! My concern is this country and the freedoms and EQUALITY that The Constitution guarantees to every American. The constitution is very clear EQUALITY for everyone..... It did not say "equality for everyone except those people over there". The bottom line is when this goes to court gay people are likely to prevail because when religion is taken out of the process all one can fall back on is The Constitution.
mikebr25 3 years ago
No we don't, but you keep up what you are pushing for and we may just find that America will become like those countries.
mm2kids 3 years ago
"SSM undermines the foundation of a free society because it undermines marriage and the by extension the family which is the cell of society"
Marriage is not the basic building block of familiy and society,the individual is.
America was founded to protect individual rights and liberties,not to protect ideal definions of terms like "marriage" in the minds of traditionalists by restricting the rights and liberties of individuals.
loudnmouthy 3 years ago
The unchecked pursuit of individual rights at the expense of the common good of society has always led to totalitarianism. The family is the basic building block of free society because it exists as a subsidiary of society. A society that looks to the individual as the basic building block is by definition a Totalitarian society. I don't think you would like that type of system.
mm2kids 3 years ago
"Totalitarianism" is where the state regulates every aspect of public and private life. North Korea would be an example. Please explain how the pursuit of individual rights leads to a totalitarian state.
I ask because the US was founded on the concept of individual rights. The Constitution outlines individual rights within the Bill of Rights. So your assertion that "the pursuit of individual rights has always led to totalitarianism" certainly needs some support, or at least clarification.
NavajoJoe66 3 years ago
Hopefully gay people will contine to fight for equality because this is a constitutional matter not a religious matter. I respect religion but I am first an foremost AN AMERICAN.Thomas Jefferson saw the threat of religion to this country and that is why the constitution guarantees EQUALITY for EVERY AMERICAN.(Jefferson Bible) While he classified himself as a christian healso declared the tyrany of religion and insisted that we should not allow religion to IN ANY WAY determine RIGHTS and policy.
mikebr25 3 years ago
And hopefully 8 supporters will keep fighting and teaching people about the dangers of gay marriage and what it will do to our society.
chroniclesofthree 3 years ago
Fight away because The constitution is very clear. EQUALITY is guaranteed to EVERY AMERICAN. Not just christians. So hopefully this goes to the courts soon so gay people will be granted thr constitutional rights.
mikebr25 3 years ago
Typical of anti 8 supporters to keep using religion. Just sad that you can't accept the vote so you become more violent and hateful by the day. Your not fighting, your forcing and prop 8 supporters will keep fighting back. Equality, you abuse that word. Constitutional rights.. How funny.. The cause is so weak because no good reason has been stated as why we should accept gay marriage so you cling to what you can. Keep spreading the hate. It's what your all about.
chroniclesofthree 3 years ago
How about the benfits of marriage! There are over a thousand..... pensions, taxes, health benefits, transfer of property just to name a few. The constitution protects everyone(even the minority) and provides EQUALITY for all. How about we just strip all married couples of thr marriage benefits? That way religion gets to keep marriage and EQUALITY still prevails. Is that the best solution for you? You would make our founding fathers weep with your disregard for this countries foundation. EQUALITY
mikebr25 3 years ago
The United States of America is not just a democracy it is a constitutional democracy What that means is that our government is designed to express not onlythe will of the majority (democracy) but also to simultaneously protect the unalienable rights ofminorities and the powerless That isan extremely important point because it is the constitutional protections of minorities and the powerless that add civility humanity and decency to what could otherwise bea barbaric nation democratic or not.
mikebr25 3 years ago
Marriage is not an inalienable right for anyone - heterosexual or homosexual!
mm2kids 3 years ago