Prop 8?

As I said you are talking nonsense to get out of addressing the issue at hand.

A family group is indeed intended by the family members in it to benefit them and this is true with gay or straight families to the same degree.

So what?

If there is zero effect on the rest of society then the society should be neutral and offer zero rewards for setting up such families groupings and the intend of the parties involved is completely beside the point.

That is indeed the case of homosexual relationships. As a human being if my gay neighbors are happy I am glad for them, but I see like reason for the state to promote that happiness by reducing my wealth and turning if over to my happy gay neighbors.

Now the happiness however of my heterosexual neighbors who hopefully are doing a good job of rising the next generation of useful citizens that will be paying for my SS benefits is important to me.

If they break-up there is a far greater likelihood that the 100 of thousands of dollars needed to raise/educate their offsprings will come out of the public purse and also a far greater chance that the children will turn out badly and be a drag on society instead of an asset.

Now once more out of all the people on this group can anyone claimed to have been raised by a devoted gay relationship?

Any of you had have two mothers or two fathers?

Sorry but the engine for raising children can not be found in the gay community.

There's been nearly 70 studies of what happens to children of gay parents.
Research shows that they turn out about the same, no better, no worse and no more likely to be gay than other kids.

Half of heterosexual marriage end in divorce -- I suppose, in comparison, that is damaging society and lining the pocket of lawyers, and by far a more voluminous and damaging problem than gay marriage could ever hope to be. The argument that gay couples take advantage of the tax system and are pick-pocketing straight people is petty and ludicrous. But then I expect that from the the small-minded, who seem to have some envy problems with gays.

The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract. -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

So it shouldn't matter if you are gay or straight.

What then is the effect that gays have that straight couple without children have that gays do have?

You'll turn your wealth over to a married straight couple without children.

And if they make like 2 kids, the money your grand kids will pay for their the two kids) SS will be worth half as much! Measuring social contribution by the procreation of children is not without it's pitfalls Billy.

When SS began you had at least 15 laborers paying in to support one retiree. Wanna know what the ratio is like today? Or better yet, wanna imagine what that becomes when the Boomers retire?

Meanwhile, helping gays establish themselves more financially would be contributing more to the SS you'll hopefully be receiving. Especially if they end up not raising children. A life of labor and fewer offspring to account for in future SS payouts if we wanna take it there.

But I'm just having fun with you Billy boy. Gays pay their taxes, they don't have anything to prove to me in terms of getting their dollar's worth.

Meanwhile, this is already happening with straight couples... multiple times. You and I may hate the dent they put in the "public purse" but who are you to declare that someone can't divorce or remarry?

I can't. One of my best friends growing up was raised by his lesbian mother and her girlfriend though. He didn't turn out messed up from it. I don't think I ever realized she was gay until we were in middle school. She was just another mom at soccer practice.

Nope. Does it mean then since nobody in this thread, in this forum, didn't, that gay parents don't exist?

AAP released it's findings on children raised in gay families. They weren't maladjusted. I know how you prefer your own speculation and your definition of terms of the scientific ones, so I don't really expect you to have the intellectual honesty to fold your cards on this tested and failed argument.

It doesn't have to be for gays to have the right to marry. This whole kids angle is pure non-sequitur strawman.

+Why can't gays get married?
-Because they can't have kids.
+They're not trying to have kids, they are trying to get married.
-Marriage is only for people who raise children.
+Those people can't have kids, and they are getting married.
-But they are straight, they can have kids.
+But they aren't going to.
-Doesn't matter that they can't have kids.
+But it matters when gays can't have kids?
-exactly.

Your argument fails so hard.

You'll never be able to beat me with an argument I know better than you do. Your premises are wrong, so it's not surprising that your conclusions are so far off. In terms of mental exercise, your arguments don't even raise my pulse.

If you don't want gays to have the same rights as you, fine. That's your opinion, but you've made no ground in terms of defending your opinion as one which is reasoned and logical enough to accept across the board.

T
K
O

The motive is envy, one of the Seven Deadly Sins and also blasted by Moses and Jesus, if you want to stick to scripture.

Envy is like a fly that passes all the body's sounder parts, and dwells upon the sores. -- Arthur Chapman

Gene Robinson: Gay Bishop Giving Obama Inauguration Prayer
The Huffington Post | Rachel Weiner | January 12, 2009 09:09 AM

Get Breaking News Alerts
New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, a vocal gay rights leader, will open President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration with a prayer on Sunday's kick-off event at the Lincoln Memorial.

"I am writing to tell you that President-Elect Obama and the Inaugural Committee have invited me to give the invocation at the opening event of the Inaugural Week activities, We are One, to be held at the Lincoln Memorial," Robinson wrote in an email to friends.

The announcement comes after weeks of outcry from the gay community over Obama's choice of evangelical, anti-gay pastor Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation.

"It's important for any minority to see themselves represented in some way," Robinson said in an interview with the Concord Monitor. "Whether it be a racial minority, an ethnic minority or, in our case, a sexual minority. Just seeing someone like you up front matters."

Robinson is the first openly gay diocesan bishop in the Anglican Communion. "God never gets it wrong. The church often takes a long time to get it right. It is a human institution, but one capable of self-correction," Robinson told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "I believe in my heart that the church got it wrong about homosexuality. There is great excitement in my heart to be living in a time when the church is starting to get it right."

Robinson said he would love to sit down with Rick Warren but believed that the California pastor has "perpetrated lies about the gay, lesbian and bisexual community."

AAP released it's findings on children raised in gay families. They weren't maladjusted. I know how you prefer your own speculation and your definition of terms of the scientific ones, so I don't really expect you to have the intellectual honesty to fold your cards on this tested and failed argument.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but the APA is in effect part of the gay right movement and had been for decades.

No group that wished to pretend to have any scientific creditability would set up a standing committee with the gay right movement as members.

What studies that does not completely support the positions of the gay right community could get by in a learned body with such an oversight board in-house ?

Your proof of this is where? You're just spinning. Don't get to dizzy. You're dizzy enough already.

I said AAP not APA. Are you illiterate too?

T
K
O

Wow blueflame1!

That's huge news.
K
O

Pediatrics has been taken over by gay activists -- didn't you know? They've infiltrated just about every aspect of our lives. At least for the terminally paranoid.

Radical Gay Apocalypse Agendas!

The Doomsgay cometh!
K
O

So, I haven't actually posted on this in a long time, and I want to respond to several things that have been brought up. I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

First, going way back about 3 pages to the argument that homosexual sex isn't natural and is a mental defect because it doesn't yield offspring. I believe this is completely bs. There are a large number of mammals (particularly primates) which frequently engage in sexual activity that does not yield offspring. (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718) In fact, if you read that article, you will see that a large number of animal species actually engage in homosexual sex. Thus, the idea is NOT strictly human in origin. The argument that homosexuality is for some reason a mental defect on the basis that it's unnatural is bunk.

Second, I'd like to point out that civilizations have, in the past, embraced homosexuality. It has not always been the shunned, taboo topic that it is today. Back in the Roman Empire, homosexual sex was a common practice among Roman Citizens. (http://www.conservapedia.com/Roman_Homosexuality) Thus, the argument that our civilization is built on this concept that a stable household MUST be heterosexual is also completely bunk. Perhaps if homosexual couples were allowed to have civil liberties that are awarded to heterosexual couples you would see more and more stable, lasting homosexual relationships. It's out there I know, but it IS just a thought...

Next I would like to address this notion that homosexual couples are the same as to roommates who have a kid. The main argument has already been made, but I want to re-emphasize the point. The purpose for government tax incentives is for the couple, NOT society as a whole. Society would benefit more if we just didn't have tax incentives. This would create more tax revenue which would result in more funding for things like, I don't know... education? However, the government understands the reasonable idea that a child benefits more from having two parental figures. Thus, incentives are made to encourage individuals to remain together (tax breaks for marriage, having children, etc). The issue here with the homosexual community isn't the fact that we don't necessarily get tax breaks, we want to not have to jump through twice the red tape to be able to adopt one of the hundreds of thousands of children who are in need of a loving household. We don't want to have tax breaks for being married, we want the same rights to visit our partner as a married couple has if their partner is in the hospital. We want to be able to be named a beneficiary on a will without going through ten other documents to be able to do so.

The thing that you all are content in arguing is the moral side. You claim to not be arguing that, but if you look at this argument in a logical fashion there is really no argument. You are saying that because someone loves someone of the same sex, they are automatically no longer afforded the same rights as someone who loves someone of the opposite sex. The argument was previously brought up that this is the same as when a white male loved a black woman but they weren't allowed to be wed. That comparison holds true.

We can argue how moral this is, but stop pretending like we stand behind some principled argument that homosexuals are going to be the downfall of our society. If you believe homosexuality is immoral, that is your belief. However, should a "sub-group" of the American population be treated like less of Americans simply because you believe that they are immoral? What about everyone who has sex before marriage? Who steals? Who lies? These people are considered immoral by some groups of people... perhaps they shouldn't be given the same rights either...

However, the crux of that argument on morality is based on the precipice that it is a choice. Do you really believe that homosexuality is all about getting off? What if it's actually about love? Did you chose your first crush? Or did you just fall for him/her? Could you really say that you made the choice to love the person you do, or is it just a feeling, something beyond your control? Are we really a society that is willing to say that because someone loves another person they are considered a lower class citizen?

the studies I have looked at show that America is willing to give gays this, if they give up on co-opting marriage, and if they stop insisting that everyone agree that what they do is just as good ads what hetro's do.

You talk about morality as if it was an ice cream flavor, like it does not matter. It does, and the collective has the right to teach morality, and to compel those who wish to disregard it to reconsider. We for damn sure have the right and the ability to punish gay behaviour if we decide that it is immoral and thus a danger to the collective.

Torquemada has issued his decree -- everybody look out.

You sound like you're in a damn cult. You creep me out.

T
K
O

But who gets to determine that it is immoral behavior? I believe that lying is immoral behavior and that all liars should be punished. Therefore, anyone who lies is no longer allowed to vote.

I also believe that kissing in public is immoral. Therefore, anyone who kisses in public should be stoned.

We once thought that people of different races intermarrying was immoral. Were we correct in this thought? We also once thought the world was flat and any mention of a hypothesis contrary to that belief was immoral. So... does this mean I can go walk off the edge of the earth? (Please please please tell me to... I said that for an underhanded lob to you all.)

The point isn't that morality is "like an ice cream flavor" it is that morality is defined by the individual. What you consider to be morally true is more than likely not 100% the same as what your mother considered morally true. You're arguing morals versus ethics. Ethics, by definition, are the over-riding principles that govern our society. Morality is the individual rules that we use to run our lives. So, that defined, is it honestly ethically right to discriminate against a person for something as simple as the person he/she choses to love?

Well there is no science in this field as it way too hot a PC issue with a very strong special interest group that will turn your life into hell if you displease them in any way.

When the APA roll over in 1972 that was the end of the era of science.

What a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theory crap. Get thee over to Yahoo Chat, a nunnery (I'm sure you'd look perfect as a nun), or become a Scientology pyramid scheme advocate which is only one of the "programs" who believe they can turn gays into straights. Of course, it's a folly -- their success rate is around 10% no matter what their propaganda lies about. That 10% if they get married straight, well, I feel sorry for the woman who enters into that kind of relationship -- they were with someone who has pushed their homosexuality back into the closet with denial and a false belief that Jesus (or in the case of Scientologist, self-psychiatry) will save them. They will ultimately be dissapointed like Larry Craig's wife while he is cruising a known gay pick-up toilet.

Your last statement that the era of science ended in 1972 again is ludicrous. You don't know science from the graffitti on the wall in your sanitarium.

Of course, psychiatry is not an exact science -- but they rightly realized after Kinsey, Hooker and others that they were kidding themselves in trying to "cure" homosexuality. I sinply didn't fall into category of a mental disorder and it was unreasonable and illogical to create a seperate category. That there is a small percentage of professional.gay participants in the APA (which you keep avoiding presenting any emperical evidence), there are even larger percentages in the Episcopal and Catholic organization.

As for your obvious mistake with the APA, I can only state that you are consitantly picking and choosing what you want to address to suit your limitations -- maybe you should have run for VP with McCain -- you wouldn't have done any worse or better than Sarah. I can see Tina Fey doing an impression of you now. As a nun, with hawkeye Torquemada at your side.

Sorry no need to turn to anything but history to know that there had been a lack of free scientific research in this field for a few generations now.

There is no question at all in my mind if a rock solid scientific paper containing any evidence that homosexuals couples should not be raising children for example, was public today that you and TKO and a few million others would be demanding the researchers heads.

It was not science that got this disorder de-listed but one hundred pure politico pressures instead and that can be found by anyone doing a few hours of research.

The gay right movement proudly mark it beginning event as a three day riot and have gone downhill from there.

All one need to do to confirm this is to go to any of the current pro-gay websites where they talk about punishing anyone who had question their claim rights to gay married.

In fact this movement and scientology have a lot in common in the uncivil ways you react to anyone who would dare to question any of your goals.

"Sorry no need to turn to anything but history to know that there had been a lack of free scientific research in this field for a few generations now"

Total BS -- you have obviously not followed the research that is reported in Psychology Today and many more periodicals and it finds its way into prominent national magazines like Time again and again. There have been several documentaries on PBS, Bravo, and, of course, although it's going to be biased, the Logo channel.

Your second sentence is a false -- quit deciding for us what intellectual decisions we would make about gays adopting kids if any study (there have been about 40 studies, all positive to gay adoption) was negative.

In psychiatry, the scientific studies is based on thousands of attempted therapy and large controlled studies based on scientific methods. You have not successfully proved that there politics involved, at least to the extent you claim.

"The gay right movement proudly mark it beginning event as a three day riot and have gone downhill from there."

There was no riot in your clumsy sentence, the Stonewall Riot was four years before the APA meeting that took the vote to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. It was about police harassment, not the APA.

Where is an example of any gay person wanting to "punish" anyone for denying gay marriage? You're blowing it all out of proportion. What kind of punishment is deemed necessary? Boycotting or demonstrating is not a punishment, its an ethical response to individuals and groups are doing their own boycotting and demonstrating. Are they advocating offenders being drawn-and-quartered, or beaten up with a sequined bag?

Any movement can be compared with another but what is perceived as uncivil to you is the right to free speech and to gather as a group.

Have you been against the Catholic church, say, when they picketed "The Last Temptation of Christ?" When they have boycotted and banned artistic endeavors?