Thread: Gay Marriage - why not?

Originally Posted by Mario92

The article stated that heterosexual men, by proportion, are more likely to molest children. Now, as I have stated, heterosexuality deals with preference in regards to gender, not in regards to age. Merriam-Webster backs this up with their definition of "heterosexual:"

Age is not a factor. A person can be a pedophile, and they can be gay, straight, or bisexual at the same time. They are independent factors. Studies have shown that it is straight individuals (people with an attraction to the opposite sex) that are more prone to molest children in regards to proportion than are gay individuals.

You are technically correct, but I just cannot agree with it. Perhaps I'm being stubborn, but I'm sure you can at least understand my point as stated previously: That pedophiles are not heterosexuals in the same sense that bisexuals are not heterosexuals. I'm not trying to argue the opposite of what the article stated, I'm saying that pedophiles are not straight or homosexual, they are in their own league so to speak.

I'm not disagreeing that the environment has an impact, and that may very well be the case. What I'm saying is that, based on what we have observed to date, it is not the ONLY factor. And the diseases listed, while some can be prevented, not all can. Sickle cell anemia and Tay Sachs syndrome are purely genetic, having absolutely nothing to do with environment. A person with Tay Sachs dies before the age of 3. A person with sickle cell rarely lives far beyond the age of 20. There are no treatments, no cures.

Environment is never the only factor, Biology does seem to play a larger role than the environment. In light of this thread I read an article http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html It does mostly agree with what you say, but there is still some room for interpretation. For example:

D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2].

At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab's and Allen's results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind.

Basically there are parts of the homosexual brain that deal with sexuality that are physically larger than the heterosexual. To me, this supports my opinion that homosexuality is a fetish. I would say these people are "sexually-hyperactive" which would explain an increased desire to explore their sexuality. Can a person be strictly homosexual? I'm not sure, and at this point I'm not willing to make assertions, but perhaps they are truly bisexual...Maybe everyone is bisexual whether practiced or not but having these biological features would make you more likely to engage in such acts.

I'm not the smartest, and I'm not pretending I am. What I am stating is that I have searched into this particular subject in depth and have a solid background in it. It is a topic I consider important, and to have the likes of you waltz in, make a crude and tasteless "joke," and then act as if it were nothing, I find offensive. Your insubstantial arguments and increasing personal attacks, as well as your condescending attitude toward people who actually care about things, is troll-like. Now, before this descends into a one-sided flame war, I beg that you consider your next post carefully. Rather than making assumptions and accusations (e.g. that I think I'm the smartest douchebag on the internet), try going after the things I actually said.

Perhaps I was taking things to personally, but that's how I perceived you at the time. You seemed to imply that I am stupid and uneducated because of my opinion. I'd like to inform you that I also have university credentials, although they have little to do with the humanities. I suppose this has left me at a disadvantage in this particular situation My increasing personal attacks were directly correlated to your increasing personal attacks. I realize you are educated in this subject so naturally you will be inclined to ask where I got such opinions, but that doesn't mean you can "bite" (insult) me and still pretend like you are taking the higher road so to speak. The joke, perhaps not fit for this thread was merely a joke. Take it how you like, I thought it was humourous although it was intended to provoke. I'm sorry the thread was negatively affected by us (at least me) taking this too personally. Let's continue without the bickering/biting/non-sense.

You said you "had a problem with gays adopting children." If that isn't a generalization, I don't know what is. It pretty much states that yeah, you don't think they should be allowed to adopt. And why shouldn't they be allowed to adopt? I can't think of a valid reason other than they'll mess up their children somehow. When applied to the vague concept of "gay couples," that certainly does show that you view gay couples as unfit to raise children. If you feel like stating your opinions, fine, but expect to face an opponent, especially on issues such as gay marriage/adoption. You are entitled to your opinions, certainly, but you can and will be questioned and even attacked unless you can justify your position. As for the attacking factor, I like to add a bit of bite to my posts, I admit, but that's how I am in general. All I want are some valid reasons with sound logic behind them, rather than assertions and faith. Provide me valid arguments, and I will treat you with more respect. We can be adults here.

To get back on topic again, my problem with gays adopting children... I'm sure there are many homosexual couples that would make great parents, and in all probability better than a lot of heterosexual couples. In light of everything said and further thought I can concede that some homosexual couples would be fit to raise children, although I still wouldn't say it is the ideal environment for a child to be raised in. But hey, it's not a perfect world, and there are plenty of unideal environments among heterosexual families as well.

I would love it if David Bowie was my Dad, although technically he is bi-sexual. He IS a great Dad to his children. Also, @ Byungsukimmishi, do you think that pedophiles only molest kids of their own gender? Most molestation happens between an adult male and a female child. I have no facts to back this up, but I think that males are morel likely to be molesters than females, maybe I am wrong. But this is irrelevant to the topic. Heterosexual or Homosexual or Bisexual have nothing to do with pedophilia. I agree with you that pedophilia is a perverse fetish. I can't see anybody granting pedophiles minority rights. But that is because in the pedophile relationship there is a defenseless victim. Not so in homosexual relationships.

I get the feeling that you just think that you instinctually don't like homosexuality. That is understandable. But that doesn't mean that that is something to base a rational logical law off of. As a heterosexual, I feel uncomfortable when I am hit on by a gay man, or when I realize I am being objectified by homosexuals. But I like it when a pretty woman flirts with me. People tried to tell me that I was homophobic. After thinking about it, I realized that no, I am not homophobic. There is nothing wrong with feeling repelled by advances that one is not interested in. Just like women must feel when there are horny men everywhere hitting on them, even if they are heterosexual. Also, I felt uncomfortable when an older women or a sexually unattractive woman is being too forward with me. I personally think that gay sex is gross; that is because I am a heterosexual and that is why I don't have gay sex.

But there are other qualities in people besides their sexuality that makes me feel more uncomfortable, such as bigotry, greed, negativity, etc.To focus on someone's sexuality means that one is preoccupied with other people's sexualities. Surely someone's sexual preference is no more important than their preference for foreign cuisine, or genre of movies. I mean, I don't like horror movies, but I don't think that people who like horror movies shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt. To focus on someone's sexual preference to define them and judge them worthy or not seems to me to question one's own sexuality and judge one's self, speaking of Freud.

Just like I think that those annoying college jocks who go out to bars on Saturday nights and can't pick up a girl so they look for a guy to fight with, I think that they are repressed homosexuals who are yearning for intimate contact with a man, but don't allow it or acknowledge that within themselves, and fighting is the only intimate contact they WILL allow with a man. So they get mad at the guy who they find attractive, and they project onto the dude and call him a faggot and start a fight with him, all the while I bet that is the only way they can get a hard on.

That being said, that is no reason to deny anybody's rights because of your personal preference. In spite of your personal opinion and preference, and your experience with your brother, there is nothing inherently wrong with being homosexual, because there are no victims. It is consentual. And like Bill Hicks said: "What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, who I marry, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?"

Now THIS is a brilliant post.

Originally Posted by byungsukimmishi

You are technically correct, but I just cannot agree with it. Perhaps I'm being stubborn, but I'm sure you can at least understand my point as stated previously: That pedophiles are not heterosexuals in the same sense that bisexuals are not heterosexuals. I'm not trying to argue the opposite of what the article stated, I'm saying that pedophiles are not straight or homosexual, they are in their own league so to speak.

I would agree with this to some extent. Pedophiles and child molesters certainly have a few loose wires, and are in their own league.

Environment is never the only factor, Biology does seem to play a larger role than the environment. In light of this thread I read an article http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html It does mostly agree with what you say, but there is still some room for interpretation. For example:

Basically there are parts of the homosexual brain that deal with sexuality that are physically larger than the heterosexual. To me, this supports my opinion that homosexuality is a fetish. I would say these people are "sexually-hyperactive" which would explain an increased desire to explore their sexuality. Can a person be strictly homosexual? I'm not sure, and at this point I'm not willing to make assertions, but perhaps they are truly bisexual...Maybe everyone is bisexual whether practiced or not but having these biological features would make you more likely to engage in such acts.

Hmm...I'm not sure I'd go as far as fetish. The area of the brain is roughly double the size...to me, that indicates that something went askew with the brain's development somewhere along the line for whatever reason, whether that be a severely traumatizing event, genetic factors, prenatal factors, or any number of things. I don't know about hyper-sexuality...gay people usually just like screwing members of the same sex at roughly the same frequency (I would guess) as a straight couple. I would say that everyone is bisexual to some extent. In the words of Ron White:

We're all gay, buddy. It's just to what extent are you gay.

It really is more of a fuzzy gradient than a yes/no question. Alfred Kinsey did a lot of sex surveys in the 1940's or so, and found that most people fell somewhere between the twin extremes. There were exclusively straight people, as well as exclusively gay people, but most people did fall somewhere in the middle.

Perhaps I was taking things to personally, but that's how I perceived you at the time. You seemed to imply that I am stupid and uneducated because of my opinion. I'd like to inform you that I also have university credentials, although they have little to do with the humanities. I suppose this has left me at a disadvantage in this particular situation My increasing personal attacks were directly correlated to your increasing personal attacks. I realize you are educated in this subject so naturally you will be inclined to ask where I got such opinions, but that doesn't mean you can "bite" (insult) me and still pretend like you are taking the higher road so to speak. The joke, perhaps not fit for this thread was merely a joke. Take it how you like, I thought it was humourous although it was intended to provoke. I'm sorry the thread was negatively affected by us (at least me) taking this too personally. Let's continue without the bickering/biting/non-sense.

Yeah, I can be a real prick sometimes. Sorry about that. Truce?

To get back on topic again, my problem with gays adopting children... I'm sure there are many homosexual couples that would make great parents, and in all probability better than a lot of heterosexual couples. In light of everything said and further thought I can concede that some homosexual couples would be fit to raise children, although I still wouldn't say it is the ideal environment for a child to be raised in. But hey, it's not a perfect world, and there are plenty of unideal environments among heterosexual families as well.

Well put. In my humble opinion, I'd say that while being raised in a homosexual family in today's society may not be "ideal," if a gay couple is otherwise eligible, it has to beat being stuck at a foster home for the rest of your life. We do have a shortage of adopters in our nation compared to the number of children up for adoption. Gay couples could help alleviate this strain on the system, and perhaps as the presence of same-sex parents increases, we as a nation will stop hazing children born to such families and help to make them more ideal. Perhaps a beneficial circle of some sort. Pure speculation, I admit, but a nice thought.

EDIT: Dannon...not anything really related, but more of just my two cents. I'm just saying, if a gay guy were to hit on me, I'd probably take it as a compliment. An awkward compliment, but a compliment nonetheless.

But there are other qualities in people besides their sexuality that makes me feel more uncomfortable, such as bigotry, greed, negativity, etc.To focus on someone's sexuality means that one is preoccupied with other people's sexualities. Surely someone's sexual preference is no more important than their preference for foreign cuisine, or genre of movies. I mean, I don't like horror movies, but I don't think that people who like horror movies shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt. To focus on someone's sexual preference to define them and judge them worthy or not seems to me to question one's own sexuality and judge one's self, speaking of Freud.

And in the famous words of Ben Croshaw, what arbitrary silliness.

Originally Posted by Bill Hicks (dannon's post)

What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, who I marry, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?"

This is all well and true, and a policy I agree with, however in reality this isn't quite the case, if you smoke in anywhere else apart from a air sealed container for the rest of your life, at least 1 molecule will most likely afect someone else. Bill hick sounds like some hardcore liberal to me, but if his policy was implimented, noone could drink smoke, eat unhealthy and we'd basically live in some ultra authoritarian society.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

This is all well and true, and a policy I agree with, however in reality this isn't quite the case, if you smoke in anywhere else apart from a air sealed container for the rest of your life, at least 1 molecule will most likely afect someone else. Bill hick sounds like some hardcore liberal to me, but if his policy was implimented, noone could drink smoke, eat unhealthy and we'd basically live in some ultra authoritarian society.

You completely misunderstood his message.

I Think it's him that doesn't understand quite what he is saying. Personal freedoms are all good and well, but laws are there to protect, if too much freedom is dealt out, then eventually you get vunerable people suffering at the hands of others freedom.

Take flag burning as an example, i'm sure Bill Hick supports legalised flag burning, but by doing so would offened many, and as a result cause them to suffer. In fact, i'm not sure of any laws that stop personal freedoms without the purpose protecting of others. I'm sure there may be some but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I Think it's him that doesn't understand quite what he is saying. Personal freedoms are all good and well, but laws are there to protect, if too much freedom is dealt out, then eventually you get vunerable people suffering at the hands of others freedom.

Take flag burning as an example, i'm sure Bill Hick supports legalised flag burning, but by doing so would offened many, and as a result cause them to suffer. In fact, i'm not sure of any laws that stop personal freedoms without the purpose protecting of others. I'm sure there may be some but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

And that was his point. We can do a bunch of things that harm people, but a bunch of other things we cannot do. Why can we smoke cigarettes, when we can't smoke cannabis? It doesn't make sense.

edit: what you are saying makes no sense anyway. Are you arguing that homosexuals hurt other people?

Indeed, why can we smoke cigarettes. I for one would advocate a ban, but it's just too late, too many people smoke to make it an enforcable law. I wasn't on about homosexuality there, just wanted to make a quick point about Bill Hicks.

C'mon back on topic. Bill Hicks was a comedian. Back on topic folks.

Your kind of suffering is perfectly acceptable. Taking away peoples freedoms, to protect people from being offended is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard. It is only a shame that it is such a common attitude.

A persons right to say what they want, and to express opinions, easily trumps a persons 'right' not to have hurt feelings. Which is obviously not a real right at all. For one a person is always going to have hurt feelings, so its silly to try to legislate feelings. Secondly, a person can always choose not to listen or to walk away if something is offensive to them.

Originally Posted by Alric

Your kind of suffering is perfectly acceptable.

My kind of suffering?

Taking away peoples freedoms, to protect people from being offended is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard. It is only a shame that it is such a common attitude.

Did you mean insane?

A persons right to say what they want, and to express opinions, easily trumps a persons 'right' not to have hurt feelings.

So a persons right to shout "nigger" trumps a blacks person right not to have hurt feelings?

For one a person is always going to have hurt feelings, so its silly to try to legislate feelings. Secondly, a person can always choose not to listen or to walk away if something is offensive to them.

I don't advocate legislating against flag burning myself, I was merely stating the flaws in Bill Hicks statement.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Did you mean insane?

No I used the correct word. I could of just said extremely stupid, but that word works better.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

So a persons right to shout "nigger" trumps a blacks person right not to have hurt feelings?

Yes, absolutely. With no doubt. As I said, there is no such thing as a right not to have hurt feelings. The person isn't actually hurt in any way, so there is no reason a person should be arrested or fined for shouting a word is there?

Besides, there are thousands of things a person could say, that could hurt someones feelings, without the person even trying to. You going to try to stop them all? Why not just make laws, saying you can't speak to people.

no no, exactly, I agree with you was just making sure you didn't have double standards.

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature.[3][100] There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents.[101] No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being.[102] It is well-established that both men and women have the capacity to be good parents, and that having parents of both genders does not enhance adjustment. The methodologies used in the major studies of same-sex parenting meet the standards for research in the field of developmental psychology and psychology generally. They constitute the type of research that members of the respective professions consider reliable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Parenting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

I suppose it depends on your definition of good parenting. Even if a child turns out stable and sucessful, doesn't mean they have had a happy upbringing, I'll do some research, but i'd be almost certain that the children of LGBT parents are bullied significantly more than children from a conventional upbringing. Psychology is also a difficult subject to examine accuratly, who's to say they arn't hiding their shame/bad feelings?

I think that it is the people who are brought up thinking that there is something 'wrong' or 'shameful' about homosexuality who would have shameful feelings to hide if they were raised by homosexual couple, but then they wouldn't be brought up with those views. There is something homophobic about having shame of your parents if they are gay. And these homophobic views are perpetuated by some heterosexuals, but not by homosexuals.

As far as bullying goes, it isn't common knowledge among the school about your parents' sex life. I was raised by a single mom who was also bi-sexual and had a girlfriend for a while. I didn't even question it or see anything wrong with it, and nobody in the school knew.

but then they wouldn't be brought up with those views

Well many but not all children have the exact same beliefs as their parents, unless they blindly follw them, which most people seem too, (liberals tend to have liberal children, conservatives tend to have conservative children) Also, what if they brought a friend home from school, and the friend saw the LGBT Couple? Then it would be known.

It would be known that there are two men there or two women. If the child is extremely ashamed he can introduce them as "my mom and her friend, or roommate, etc." If the parents are sensitive to the prevailing social stigma they would probably refrain from overt acts of affection in front of their child's friends. Most of the same sex parents are women anyway. A women is allowed to have a baby no matter what her sexual orientation is, child protective services cannot take the baby away just because Mom has a girlfriend, so why not be able to adopt?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Well many but not all children have the exact same beliefs as their parents, unless they blindly follw them, which most people seem too, (liberals tend to have liberal children, conservatives tend to have conservative children) Also, what if they brought a friend home from school, and the friend saw the LGBT Couple? Then it would be known.

So you condone homophobia?