"Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad"?!

[shagdrum]

Well then; prove that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Not conjecture, not impression, not idea. Proof. Validate it, as they did against interfaith or interracial marriage.

Can you say shifting the burden of proof?
The precautionary principle would dictate that burden of proof naturally falls on those pushing to allow gay marriage.

Besides, tradition has already historically validated heterosexual marriage. The burden of proof falls on you to show that marriage should be redefined (which you can't do).

No you haven't. You've offered opinions.

I have offered plenty of facts here. If you missed them, go back and re-read this thread.

As I already said, girl on girl IS homosexuality. Even if you like it. Since it is supported by most (and that's well over 51%) men, it's hypocrisy in its purest form. You can't give gays rights, but you can buy a gay product? Now that's funny.

You still can't show it's relevance.

I'm noting their hypocrisy.

...Which you have yet to show is somehow relevant and anything more the an ad hominem red herring.

What "real debate" are you referring to? So far you haven't accepted any reality in the discussion.

You haven't offered any "reality" here (though you claim to).

Real, honest debate would actually involve intellectual integrity and honesty; something you have shown you are incapable of. Instead you only offer intentional distortion, mischaracterization, underhanded rhetoric and fallacious arguments. All that serves to do is distract from the debate here.

You aren't offering anything but dishonest spin.

By your method of debate it would be fine to not be racist to light skinned blacks. Only the dark skinned ones. Because, after all, that's an entirely different thing.

Where are you getting that?!

My whole argument is predicated on the idea that homosexuality is not biologically natural, but psychological. That whole argument differentiates homosexuality from racial minorities, and other biological minorities.

Your little false analogy intentionally ignores that part of my argument.

 

[shagdrum]

Stop it! My sides are hurting from laughing so much at you and boy wonder and the “watching homosexuality affirms your heterosexuality” stance.

Here’s what you two used as a defense;

Men who watch pornography want to see girl on girl not because of the gayness of it, but because of the nudity and the sex. It's about naked women, and two are better than one, and three are better than two, and so on. Men aren't watching that thinking, "Wow this is so gay, I love it. Way to go gays!"

Most young hetero guys are turned on by watching two chicks go at it. Obviously that says that they are heterosexual and reflects their carnal sexual urges…Your example is nothing more then an affirmation of a straight man's heterosexuality. You are reaching to draw conclusions about their moral and social views. And then, through ad hominem reasoning and jumping to a conclusion, saying that most of society accepts homosexuality, when all you have show is that heterosexual men are attracted to women.

Two girls kissing/fondling/groping/sucking/licking is HOMOSEXUAL behavior. (obfuscation/red herring)Some find it as nauseating as you’ve stated with two guys doing it (or ugly chicks). A guy I work with dumped his wife after finding her with another woman (then again, the other woman resembled Cynthia Nixon’s GF, not Ellen DeGeneres’s). A high statistical majority finds female HOMOSEXUALTY erotic. To the tune of billions of dollars a year. If Brokeback Mountain featured Jessica Alba and Halle Berry like the spoof posters for part II, there would have been nary a protest.

It’s still HOMOSEXUAL behavior. Condoned, enjoyed, and urged on, but still HOMOSEXUAL. As with Farrakhan decrying racism against blacks yet espousing his against Jews. (obfuscation) You either support it or you don’t.

ho•mo•sex•u•al•i•ty [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-al-i-tee]–noun sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.

Your hypocritical bigotry is laughable as you attempt to portray yourself as Mensa candidates. You both portray the same characteristics of the closet drinking Baptist or molesting priest. (false analogy/personal attack) Rail against something publicly while supporting/indulging in the “perversion”. And then attempt to legitimize your hypocrisy with your twisted attempt of the men only watch because there is nudity. (mischaracterization) HOMOSEXUAL actions are always HOMOSEXUAL. They are watching HOMOSEXUALITY. Or do you prefer to think of them as bi-sexual? What’s that? Part time HOMOSEXUAL? Is that possible? Is it experimenting, or just gay? Can you recover from it? Or is your heterosexuality like a bubble; one prick and it’s gone?

People like you, thinking they were so bright and right, protested interfaith and interracial marriages for years before the laws or “morals” were finally changed.(more false analogy/personal attack) Or rather, were stopped from denying rights to the citizens. No more rights than me, but no less either. (distortion) Too bad the EEOC policies don’t follow that mantra.

Gay marriage doesn’t adversely affect either of you. Actually, it adds money to the state with marriage/divorce fees. Adds to the community with the weddings and lawyers used. Adds to the federal coffers with the marriage penalty.

Reality class is over. You’re both dismissed. Take you hypocritical bigotry and run along. (personal attack)

You’ve more than made my point for me. (spin)

Now you are claiming that we are hypocritical? ...and bigots?!

Can you provide a basis for that without throwing out your intellectual integrity and obfuscating the issue?

You also still have to show how your claims of hypocrisy are somehow relevant and anything more the an ad hominem red herring.

FYI, proof by assertion doesn't do that.

 

[halo001]

Your claims of bigotry are completely unfounded, at no point did anyone participating in this debate admit to having watched pornography involving gay actions.

You claim that allowing gays to marry will help society is also unfounded as whether it would help or hurt is unknown, though one would suspect the effects would be adverse, considering this goes against one of our cardinal rules, however unfounded this is my opinion.

This also begins to play into the Slippery Slope Thereom, if we change marriage now, what stops us from changing it in the future? Marriage is meant to be the Holy joining of a man and a woman, if we eliminate this one requirement of a man and a woman, what stops us from eliminating other boundrys? How long until interspecies marriage between humans and animals?

You claim gay marriage will finacially help, on a small scale, when considering that the average cost of raising a single child in a Heterosexual marriage, this includes from before birth to 17 years of age, is between 250,000-300,000. I can already tell you will pull up adoption, irrelevant since gay couples can already adopt.

I say we allow the states that already have it, to have it and we can use them as a social experiment to see the effects.

 

[squidnomore]

Your claims of bigotry are completely unfounded, at no point did anyone participating in this debate admit to having watched pornography involving gay actions.

They attempted to validate watching homosexual acts as affirming heterosexuality. What we learned from them was;

-Viewing/enjoying homosexual love acts affirms heterosexuality of the viewers.

-Such enjoyment of the homosexual love acts does not imply consent of the acts, nor validate the status of the acts as normal.

-Enjoying the homosexual acts does not mean the persons involved in them should have equal rights under the law as their actions are abominations.

-The homosexual act enjoyed by the surrounding persons does not condone the homosexual lifestyle.

big·ot·ry [big-uh-tree] noun, plural -ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
—Synonyms 1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

considering this goes against one of our cardinal rules

What/whose rule? Rules have been changed before; interfaith and interracial.

Marriage is meant to be the Holy joining of a man and a woman, if we eliminate this one requirement of a man and a woman, what stops us from eliminating other boundrys? How long until interspecies marriage between humans and animals?

You can get married without the religion. It's a civil agreement with benefits. As for the slippery slope, your same tired argument was used against interfaith and interracial marriage. Did it happen? No. However, other countries have other ideas;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stm

average cost of raising a single child

I missed your point in that. If they don't have kids it's better or worse? Or better/worse than heterosexual couples that don't have kids?

I say we allow the states that already have it, to have it and we can use them as a social experiment to see the effects.[/

Gun laws, driver's licenses, and other things have reciprocity across multiple states if not the nation. Same rules apply for marriage/divorce for them and be done with it.

As I asked before; how does gay marriage affect Brittney's 55 hour marriage, the Kennedy annulment after 20 years and 2 kids, or the cheating spouses in the jet set turning a blind eye for the money, "sanctity of marriage"?

 

[squidnomore]

My whole argument is predicated on the idea that homosexuality is not biologically natural, but psychological.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169653,00.html

Guess they, and other animals, talked it over. So much for your predication.

Others had the same tired arguments against interfaith and interracial marriage. The laws were changed.

These will be too.

And of no harm to you.

 

[fossten]

Your claims of bigotry are completely unfounded, at no point did anyone participating in this debate admit to having watched pornography involving gay actions.

They attempted to validate watching homosexual acts as affirming heterosexuality. What we learned from them was;

-Viewing/enjoying homosexual love acts affirms heterosexuality of the viewers.

-Such enjoyment of the homosexual love acts does not imply consent of the acts, nor validate the status of the acts as normal.

-Enjoying the homosexual acts does not mean the persons involved in them should have equal rights under the law as their actions are abominations.

-The homosexual act enjoyed by the surrounding persons does not condone the homosexual lifestyle.

Well, as usual, you've got things turned around and back to front.

I explained the motivation behind watching two women making love on film as a response to your futile attempt to use that as a basis for validating gay marriage. All of your subsequent assertions, personal attacks, mischaracterizations, and red herrings do not at all advance your argument, nor are they even relevant to your argument. You apparently enjoy calling people names, and you apparently enjoy seeing your words in print. I hope you also enjoy seeing your arguments picked apart and ridiculed, because you fail at advancing an argument using those pitiful techniques.

In fact, you've gone so far as to call into question your own maturity. Examine the rules of the forum. You are violating them by using name calling and personal attacks. Such behavior is not acceptable here, although it is often tolerated. You've been cautioned about this a number of times already. If you don't want to be written off as a troll, and if your intent is to have real, actual discussions in an intellectual manner here, then you'd best cut out the invective and learn to debate in a civil, dignified manner.

In short, stop making the discussion about any of the posters, including yourself. Stick to the topic and debate the merits of the issue without spewing all the bile.

/lecture

 

[shagdrum]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169653,00.html

Guess they, and other animals, talked it over. So much for your predication.

Funny, the whole "homosexuality in the animal kingdom" thing was explained and discredited in post number 38 of this thread.

Since you wanna ignore that, I'll reiterate it for you here:

Simon LeVay, a homosexual scientist said:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. ​

Dr. Antonio Pardo said:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.​

Basically, homosexuality is incidental at best in the animal kingdom and is likely due to a number of other instincts besides reproduction or sexual attraction. There is no such thing as a homosexual animal (an animal that is only attracted to animals of the same sex). Really it is hetero animals who occasionally conduct homosexual acts.​

The article you cited seems to fit with these two scientists interpretation. That "same sex" penguin couple tried to incubate a rock at one point, and after then, one of them went straight when a single female arrived. interesting...

Others had the same tired arguments against interfaith and interracial marriage. The laws were changed.

These arguments are hardly the same as those. In fact, all you have done is claim that they were without showing that they in fact are; proof by assertion.

Either way, it only serves to distract from the debate, as it doesn't say anything about the legitimacy and validity of the arguments against gay marriage; another red herring, which seems to be about all the "evidence" you can muster up.

 

[halo001]

You can get married without the religion. It's a civil agreement with benefits. As for the slippery slope, your same tired argument was used against interfaith and interracial marriage. Did it happen? No. However, other countries have other ideas

Ok, yes I admit the Slippery Slope argument is old, but lets look, they used it at the debate for acceptance of both interfaith and interracial. Ok, nothing here yet, but I view that it is in fact in effect considering the very fact that we are about to accept, and some have already accepted, gay marriage.

We went against our beliefs of interfaith, not long after we accepted interracial, now we are arguing over gay marriage, I'm just saying that we are in the middle of a Slippery Slope and should place some barrier, and history shows that not doing that leads to more radical things.

Off topic-
Oh, and seriously, keep the personal attacks to yourself, I actually will only debate here because the people are mature enough to only argue the topic at hand and present their opinion in an acceptable way, I'm 17 and realize I don't know everything, but please keep the personal attacks to a minimum.

 

[hrmwrm]

"Funny, the whole "homosexuality in the animal kingdom" thing was explained and discredited in post number 38 of this thread. "

maybe you though it was shag, but i don't believe it was discredited. that is your view.

"By Sara Goudarzi
LiveScience staff writer

updated 1:46 p.m. MT, Thurs., Nov. 16, 2006
From male killer whales that ride the dorsal fin of another male to female bonobos that rub their genitals together, the animal kingdom tolerates all kinds of lifestyles.

A first-ever museum display, "Against Nature?," which opened last month at the University of Oslo's Natural History Museum in Norway, presents 51 species of animals exhibiting homosexuality.

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.

The idea, however, is rarely discussed in the scientific community and is often dismissed as unnatural because it doesn't appear to benefit the larger cause of species continuation.

"I think to some extent people don't think it's important because we went through all this time period in sociobiology where everything had to be tied to reproduction and reproductive success," said Linda Wolfe, who heads the Department of Anthropology at East Carolina University. "If it doesn't have [something to do] with reproduction it's not important."

For pleasure
However, species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction.

"You can make up all kinds of stories: Oh it's for dominance, it's for this, it's for that, but when it comes down to the bottom I think it's just for sexual pleasure," Wolfe told LiveScience.

Conversely, some argue that homosexual sex could have a bigger natural cause than just pure pleasure: namely evolutionary benefits.

Copulation could be used for alliance and protection among animals of the same sex. In situations when a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships allow an animal to join a pack.

"In bonobos for instance, strict heterosexual individuals would not be able to make friends in the flock and thus never be able to breed," Bockman told LiveScience. "In some bird species that bond for life, homosexual pairs raise young. If they are females, a male may fertilize their eggs. If they are males, a solitary female may mate with them and deposit her eggs in their nest."

Mom and Dad and Dad
Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.

"Homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are terms defined by societal boundaries, invisible in the animal kingdom.

"Many species are hermaphrodites," Bockman said. Hermaphrodites have both male and female sex organs. A lot of marine species have no sex life at all, but just squirt their eggs or semen into sea.

Some creatures even reproduce asexually, by dividing themselves into two organisms. In one species of gecko, females clone themselves.

Like most complex issues, animal homosexuality is challenging and poorly understood. Therefore, educators tend to shy away from covering it in their teaching. Many scientists don't even want to be associated with this type of research.

"I've had primatologists offer to give me their data on homosexual behavior because they didn't want to publish it," Wolfe said.

"Against Nature?" was set up partly to demystify the concept.

The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the "laws of nature" can now be rejected scientifically, said Geir Soli, project leader for the exhibition. "A main target for this project was to get museums involved in current debate; to show that museums are more than just a gallery for the past."

To learn more, see LiveScience's Top 10 presentation, Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild."



but then you'll stick by your narrow definition.

and a little more.


"Medical Science News


Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.
From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.

The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous roll in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.

"Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they engage in oral sex with each other."

Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy".

Homosexuality is a social phenomenon and is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life.

Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having sex. Among many of the female apes the sex organs swell up. So they rub their abdomens against each other," explains Petter Bockman and points out that animals have sex because they have the desire to, just like we humans.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.
When you see a colony of black-headed gulls, you can be sure that almost every tenth pair is lesbian. The females have no problems with being impregnated, although, according to Petter Boeckman they cannot be defined as bisexual.

"If a female has sex with a male one time, but thousands of times with another female, is she bisexual or homosexual? This is the same way to have children is not unknown among homosexual people."
Indeed, there is a number of animals in which homosexual behaviour has never been observed, such as many insects, passerine birds and small mammals.

"To turn the approach on its head: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."

Petter Bockman regrets that there is too little research about homosexuality among animals.

"The theme has long been taboo. The problem is that researchers have not seen for themselves that the phenomenon exists or they have been confused when observing homosexual behaviour or that they are fearful of being ridiculed by their colleagues. Many therefore overlook the abundance of material that is found. Many researchers have described homosexuality as something altogether different from sex. They must realise that animals can have sex with who they will, when they will and without consideration to a researcher's ethical principles."

One example of overlooking behaviour noted by Petter Bockman is a description of mating among giraffes, when nine out of ten pairings occur between males.

"Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around"dominance,competition or greetings."


as you can see, there is a lot of homosexuality that are not one off encounters. the heterosexual sex is the one off encounter just for the sake of propogation.

 

[shagdrum]

The first article is simply spin and equivocation; it attempts to redefine homosexuality very broadly to allow for certain things to fall under the definition that normally don't...

Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.

Under the broad definition used to claim that the black swan couples are "homosexual", the three guys raising the girls in Full House would have to be considered three homosexual guys in relationship with each other; a gay trio. Basically, they are claiming homosexuality in an incident lacking any truly homosexual acts! That is a big stretch.

Sorry, that is not what homosexuality is. Homosexuality is dependent on sex and sexual attraction. The only evidence of any sexuality cited in that example is heterosexuality.

FYI; There is no reason for hermaphrodites or asexual reproduction in the article or the exhibit except to further confuse the issue...

The article only offers some speculation and conjecture that animals have sex for pleasure, but offers no evidence for it. Only a fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof...

For pleasure
However, species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction.

"You can make up all kinds of stories: Oh it's for dominance, it's for this, it's for that, but when it comes down to the bottom I think it's just for sexual pleasure," Wolfe told LiveScience.

However, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay, a scientist who's study is sexuality and its causes, and whom you have cited here in this thread, says that homosexual acts in the animal community are incidental at best...

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. ​

It has been scientifically show that the vast majority of the animal kingdom doesn't have sex for pleasure. There are other motivations; mostly reproduction, but also to show dominance, acceptance, etc. Mere conjecture doesn't change that.

The second article, like the first is simply spin and doesn't disprove any of the claims regarding animal homosexuality that I have laid out in this thread. It simply takes facts that are in line with idea I conveyed, spins it 180 degrees and then tries to shift the burden of proof...

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous roll in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals. [to avoid violence...showing dominance, submissiveness or acceptance?]

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy". [showing acceptance?]

All these example fit in with what Simon LeVay said and what I quoted Dr. Antonio Pardo as saying:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.​

All the actual homosexual acts cited in either article are incidental and can best be explained through some instinct other then reproduction or pleasure.

Both articles also attempt to redefine homosexuality to include pairing up for child rearing in the face of actual heterosexual acts, when no actual homosexual acts have been committed.

Neither of these articles in any way disproves what I laid out in post #38. Just spin, equivocation and a subtle shifting of the burden of proof. Nothing more.

Either way, animal sexuality doesn't say much of anything about human sexuality. If you are ultimately wanting to prove that human homosexuality is natural, you are barkin up the wrong tree here.

Off topic:
Next time you might wanna provide links to the articles (if possible) and provide more of your own commentary and argument; you are bordering on the whole "wall 'o' text" argument here. Just some helpful advice...

 

[cammerfe]

General comment--
You folk sure burn up a lot of mental energy arguing minutiae. There's probably some fact to be found on each side, but the overwhelming self-righteousness to be found here, in conjunction with the facts, soils the air around you. I wish I could find it entirely amusing---I find it faintly sad.
KS

 

[Kbob]

General comment--
You folk sure burn up a lot of mental energy arguing minutiae. There's probably some fact to be found on each side, but the overwhelming self-righteousness to be found here, in conjunction with the facts, soils the air around you. I wish I could find it entirely amusing---I find it faintly sad.
KS

If this were posted after hrmwrm's comment I would not respond. However, I have noticed that your posts in this forum generally lean towards the self-righteous side as well. In particular against conservative posters, veiled in a "there's probably some fact to be found on each side, but ..." sort of way. Who are you to question what someone chooses to devote their mental energy to? I for one appreciate the effort on both sides. It saves me a lot of time researching it myself. The information is spelled out plainly for all to see, and you're certainly free to dive in. Instead you take pot shots and run. In short, you're being hypocritical.

I know from experience that what is thought in the mind does not always translate completely in writing. Emoticons can help, but not completely of course. No where in Shag's comment does he even address hrmwrm except when he says he's "barking up the wrong tree", and his last paragraph (which I happen to agree with; I've made similar comments to people throughout the years since this site began). His post mainly consists of refuting the material in the articles hrmwrm posted. And notice what's at the end of that last paragraph: a big smily face, not a frown or eyerolls or anything like that. I think you're reading something into this that's not there. And I confess that I have done that in the past as well.

 

[KD00LS]

All I have to say is, if it doesn't involve me, I don't care. I haven't read this whole thread due to length, but I think one of the major issues with gay marriage was on part of taxes. People believe that heterosexuals will get married to each other to reap the tax benefits, but I think that a man and a woman can get married for such the same reason and not be bonded like true marriage should be. Keep in mind that I think that was one of the reasons, I'm not 100% sure. If your religion denounces this, then by all means you have a reason. Other than that, meh.

 

[ford nut]

All I have to say is, if it doesn't involve me, I don't care. I haven't read this whole thread due to length, but I think one of the major issues with gay marriage was on part of taxes. People believe that heterosexuals will get married to each other to reap the tax benefits, but I think that a man and a woman can get married for such the same reason and not be bonded like true marriage should be. Keep in mind that I think that was one of the reasons, I'm not 100% sure. If your religion denounces this, then by all means you have a reason. Other than that, meh.

Not too many tax benefits to being married.
http://taxes.about.com/od/taxplanning/qt/marriage_tax.htm

Now, as for getting married or not, that's almost always a personal decision instead of a tax decision. Strictly from a tax perspective, getting married makes the most sense when one spouse earns income and the other spouse doesn't earn income. That because one income is being spread over two people

IMHO if you are going to post read the whole thread.
You might find something that might change you mind if you should care or not.

 

[fossten]

The information is spelled out plainly for all to see, and you're certainly free to dive in. Instead you take pot shots and run. In short, you're being hypocritical.

You've just articulated the working definition of a troll.

 

[KD00LS]

Not too many tax benefits to being married.
http://taxes.about.com/od/taxplanning/qt/marriage_tax.htm



IMHO if you are going to post read the whole thread.
You might find something that might change you mind if you should care or not.

ADD. For that, I apologize.

 

[hrmwrm]

i see, shag. so occasional homosexual encounters are heterosexual, but if there are occasional heterosexual encounters, it's not homosexuality either. if anything, you put the spin of a tightly defined definition. if a homosexual has any heterosexual intercourse, then they are not homosexual.
you also leave out my italicized section. it makes a point clear.

"Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.
When you see a colony of black-headed gulls, you can be sure that almost every tenth pair is lesbian. The females have no problems with being impregnated, although, according to Petter Boeckman they cannot be defined as bisexual.

"If a female has sex with a male one time, but thousands of times with another female, is she bisexual or homosexual? This is the same way to have children is not unknown among homosexual people."


so, it's not always a pick and choose or occasional occurence. it does happen exclusively at times. and these are sexual relationships between same sex partners. but your arguement will overlook this again.

 

[hrmwrm]

and cammerfe; i take it in good fun. i hold no animosity. i'd sit down for a coffee with anybody i argue with here. good way to improve mental alertness. who is actually right or wrong doesn't matter.

 

[shagdrum]

i see, shag. so occasional homosexual encounters are heterosexual, but if there are occasional heterosexual encounters, it's not homosexuality either. if anything, you put the spin of a tightly defined definition. if a homosexual has any heterosexual intercourse, then they are not homosexual.

so, it's not always a pick and choose or occasional occurrence. it does happen exclusively at times. and these are sexual relationships between same sex partners. but your argument will overlook this again.

Where are you getting this idea from? "occasional homosexual encounters are heterosexual, but if there are occasional heterosexual encounters, it's not homosexuality"? "if a homosexual has any heterosexual intercourse, then they are not homosexual"? Where did I say anything like that? cite the quotes and post numbers.

This comes across as a rather obviously attempt to mischaracterize my argument as somehow having some "double standard" in order to set up a straw man argument. I never said, or implied what you are claiming.

I think you may be missing the point being made in my last post. Lets look at your example...

Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

homosexuality is defined as "a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons [or in this case birds] of the same sex"

Are these "homosexual" bird couples having sex, or exhibiting some sexual attraction to each other? There is no evidence or even claims of that in this example. Therefore these birds pairing to raise children cannot, by definition, be considered homosexual.

The only way that these couples can be considered to be in any way "homosexual" is if a different, broader definition of homosexuality is assumed for this example. The implied definition of homosexuality in this example is one in which two individuals of the same sex pairing up to raise a child makes them a homosexual couple.

Under this definition, the three men in the TV show Full House raising the children would have to be considered to be in a homosexual relationship.

If a woman moved in with her sister to help raise her sister's children, the women would have to be viewed as being in an incestuous homosexual relationship, according to the definition in this example.

While subtle, the example you give here is a textbook example of equivocation. It attempts to broadly redefine homosexuality and take away the definitional dependence of homosexuality on sexual attraction and sexual acts. It is a fallacious argument.

In fact, the only evidence of any sexual activity in this example is of heterosexual sex; specifically in the conceiving of the egg.

I am not "overlooking" anything here. On the other had, you seem to be assuming that these pairs are having sex. However, given the actual info in this example, that is a baseless assumption.

There is no "double standard" as you seem to be clumsily trying to mischaracterize my argument as so you can set up a straw man argument. There is only the fallacious equivocation inherent in your example here, as well as your apparent leaping to groundless conclusions about that example.

 

[fossten]

Keep swinging, hrmwrm. It's amusing watching you getting taken apart.

 

[cammerfe]

If this were posted after hrmwrm's comment I would not respond. However, I have noticed that your posts in this forum generally lean towards the self-righteous side as well. In particular against conservative posters, veiled in a "there's probably some fact to be found on each side, but ..." sort of way. Who are you to question what someone chooses to devote their mental energy to? I for one appreciate the effort on both sides. It saves me a lot of time researching it myself. The information is spelled out plainly for all to see, and you're certainly free to dive in. Instead you take pot shots and run. In short, you're being hypocritical.

I know from experience that what is thought in the mind does not always translate completely in writing. Emoticons can help, but not completely of course. No where in Shag's comment does he even address hrmwrm except when he says he's "barking up the wrong tree", and his last paragraph (which I happen to agree with; I've made similar comments to people throughout the years since this site began). His post mainly consists of refuting the material in the articles hrmwrm posted. And notice what's at the end of that last paragraph: a big smily face, not a frown or eyerolls or anything like that. I think you're reading something into this that's not there. And I confess that I have done that in the past as well.

I'm probably one of the most conservative people---political definition---you'll ever find. But my conservative-ness is tempered with one overarching must-have, "STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS. DON'T TRY TO TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD DO. AND FOR GOODNESS SAKE, DON'T TRY TO TELL ME WHAT I SHOULDN'T DO". (This is a basic attitude and not specifically aimed at anyone!)
On the subject of same-sex, it's not my business what two adults do in private. Not unless they shove it in my face and try to demand that I give approval. They won't get it.
Marriage, by definition, is one man and one woman. Social connections not going by the label of marriage are a different story.
When a liberal tries to suggest he knows what's best for me, or a conservative tries to tell me how to act---well, shame on both of them.
I hunt and fish and pray regularly. One of my best friends is my Pastor; a Bible scholar of the highest order.
I'm a car nut, and I hold two national land speed records.
I don't go out in public without having a 1911 with me.
I'm an individual; any label will miss to a certain extent.
KS

 

[Bob Hubbard]

This has been a long thread, and very good reading.
Many of us who posted here have different opinions, and that too is good.
My feeling is live and let live, but above all, PLEASE DON'T CRAM YOUR OPINION DOWN MY THROAT EXPECTING THAT i MUST ACCEPT IT.
My thoughts on this subject are varied, but the one thing that would help this gay marraige situation would be to omit the word "marraige," and substitute "union" in it's place.
There will always be those that feel threatened by gays becomming married.
I don't think it is the marraige that bothers these people, it is the word marraige.
That is, and should be reserved for a man and women.
The holy, and legal "union" of two people of the same sex, should be the participating parties business, and nobody elses.
It's that sticky word "marraige" that has many people up in arms.
Still there are many who, no matter what word is used to describe the gay union, find the whole idea of homosexualityy distasteful and sinful.
They certainly have a right to their opinion, as do those who dissagree with them.
Homosexuality has been going on for centuries, and more than likely will continue till world's end so, even if those against it can't, of won't accept it, they must know it will always be amongst us.

 

[Marcus]

Under the broad definition used to claim that the black swan couples are "homosexual", the three guys raising the girls in Full House would have to be considered three homosexual guys in relationship with each other; a gay trio.

Wait... you mean they WEREN'T?

 

[shagdrum]

Wait... you mean they WEREN'T?

Well....maybe Joey and Uncle Jesse. I hear Saget just kinda laid there... :lol:


Bob Saget is my role model!!!

FYI: those links, while funny, are NSFW.

 

[halo001]

I believe that this debate has gotten a little off subject, I could have sworn we were argueing over whether gay marriage should be allowed, then homosexual animals flew from no where, and then the Great Wall of Off-topic text of China hit me in the eye, and now, sadly, I can only see from one eye.


Since we are off subject anyway, Saget is my hero too. He makes alot of money telling corny jokes about not so funny videos. Yet we are intranced and continue watching, I wish I could make money that way.