[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
asdf
I find the comparison insulting and offensive.
And yet alcholism and sexual behavior are both based on behaviors while skin color is not. Can you imagine then, how offensive it is for LGB's to high-jack another's completely non-behavior oriented experiences as a comparison to their own?
Quote:
I'm afraid you're mistaken. There is a great deal of evidence that attractional orientation is genetically influenced. There's a decent summary and links to further resources on the empirical research at the Wiki page on
Biology and sexual orientation.
Please provide something other than a WIKI. Regardless, behaviors that are harmful, even if genetic, such as alcholism, are not embraced by society.
Quote:
Alcoholism is a harmful behavior. ****sexuality is not a behavior at all. Alcoholism is detrimental to the individual as well as families & society. People in stable same-sex relationships are not.
Did you even read the article I provided you. Let's get gross here for a moment---the body is not meant to conform to ****sexual sexual practices. As a result, damage is done to the body and it becomes suseptible to all kinds of diseases. ****sexuality is a behavior---you can't be sexual until you act on a feeling. You can't be anything that is determined by a behavior at all unless you act. You can't be a baseball player until you stand at a plate. You can't be a pianist until you sit at a piano. I might feel to hurt someone, but I am not considered violent until I act.
Quote:
I'm sorry, but there is no multi-million dollar lobby to prevent the infertile from marrying, or to prohibit single parents from raising children. Again, certain ideas about the role of parenting may be important in your religious tradition, but they don't hold ground when given scrutiny (say, in a court of law).
Marriage isn't based on the fact that some couples may be infertile. Marriage is based on the fact that when a man and a woman get together, offspring is a possibility and offspring is ONLY a possibility when a man and a woman have intercourse. Marriage is that union. Yes, I know that we have desecrated marriage to the point that the purpose has been lost--but look at the end result of our society. Crime, drug abuse---so many problems in society can be linked to the failure in the home. Every teacher who has ever taught children will tell you, children from homes where the parents are not home, single parents, chidren of divorce--these kids are struggling.
Quote:
And even if marriage were defined around couples' fitness to be stable, healthy parents, there is no evidence that same-sex couples are unfit to raise children.
A man is different than a woman and a woman is different than a man. It takes a man and a woman to have a child and as such, the child has a right to be raised by both and the best scenario is for the child to have their biological parents who raises them in love. This "best practice" has been desecrated over and over again. Now, to think that a child does not need a mother or a father is ludicrous. A ****sexual recognizes a differences when choosing a partner--and now the child is not supposed to notice a difference of not having one or the other (and society too)? ****sexual "marriage" is just one more nail in the coffin for the well-being of children.
Quote:
No. It is not an "absolute possibility". Post-menopausal women, men who have had vasectomies, women who have had hysterectomies, the infirm, the handicapped, the asexual, ... are all permitted to marry. The government does not have a compelling interest in whether, what kind, how much, and how fertile your sexual relationship is.
Acceptions to the rule should not make the rule. We don't do a fertility test for marriage, we just understand that offspring is a possible result. And, all situations, in which you gave---if these people did adopt, there would be a man and a woman to raise the child. While adoptions are a bandaid--these homes would still at least, at minimum recognize that a man and a woman are not the same and that a child should have both.
Quote:
What is the difference?
A man and a woman is different than 2 men or 2 women. Men and women are different. If ****sexuals themselves did not recognize tihs difference, there would be no reason to be ****sexual.
Quote:
Sometimes. And in other "tribal" cultures, ****sexual and "third sex" people are fully accepted and integrated into society.
Yes, and we can see from tribal experiences, that this open sex policies has resulted in disaster and even the discontinuation of many tribes.
Quote:
Yes, there can be some fluidity and grey areas in sexual iden***y, gender expression, and attractional orientation, but that is all the more reason to be accepting and understanding of non-heteronormative expressions—particularly when considering the evidence that efforts to change orientation are almost universally impossible.
You say that, but the ****sexual community has gone to great lengths to prevent counsellors from helping those turn away from ****sexual tendencies. The huge number of gay people who report bi-sexual behavior leads me to believe this is not a sexual orientation issue, but more a fidelity issue.
Quote:
N.B. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a greater incidence of consensual nonmonogamy and "open relationships" among same-sex couples as among opposite-sex couples. One explanation (among many, I'm sure) could be that gay and lesbian people tend to have been rejected by conservative religious movements.
The data says otherwise, you are just sucking this out of your thumb and showing me that you did not read the link I gave you.
I gave you the link for the whole article. Did you read it?
Quote:
Even if these were true, the mind boggles at how one uses a statistic like this, ostensibly showing the instability of GLB relationships, as a cudgel against allowing them the validation and incentive to stability that is civil marriage.
It is true and in light of what stats has revealed and in light of what happens to chlidren in our already desecrating the marriage union, why do we want to go one step further into unbridaled p***ions?
Quote:
You're welcome to personally adhere to whatever idiosyncratic, personally defined, religiously based "definition" of marriage you like—you're not welcome to impose that on others with the force of civil law.
What do you think a law is if it not the collective wisdom imposed by society for the safeguarding of society? So, you are wrong---I can define marriage and I can impose that on others. We do this with other things such as child pornography, pornography in general, etc. So, yes, we impose ourselves on others all of the time. This is why you will get a ticket if you race down the street like a maniac. And yes, I view the protection of children worth my time to sit and make my point to you.
Quote:
Which is a completely different issue, and is a very far cry from the historical understandings of marriage I cited above.
Every historical relationsip has a stewardship--a king to his country, his country to him. Christ to his church, his church to him. A man to a woman, a woman to him---and the resulting children to their parents and their parents to them. So, yes marriage is a contractual agreement, but marriage between a man and a woman is unique in that it has the possiblity of bringing others into the world. If you sat and argued for single-parenthood or divorce--I would be making these same arguments as to why marriage is important.
Quote:
You ***erted it. You can substantiate it, or not, as you like.
As you are adopted, I thought you would be interested in looking up these stats.
Quote:
I am white; my mom is Filipina. Not much genetic similarity there at all. In any case, good luck trying to tear apart families by outlawing adoption—or whatever it is your endgame is.
I am not trying to outlaw adoption, I merely recognize that it is a bandaid for infedility. It is not the best situation for a kid, but better than a single parent home or being brought up in a home that there parents are abusive, etc.
Quote:
Of course others' behavior affects us; of course no man is an island entire of itself. I don't know anyone claiming otherwise, so you're fighting a straw man here.
I am glad you recognize then that there is a reason to have a vested interest in how we define marriage for the sake of children.
Quote:
You're pining for something that never existed.
You fight for the "rights" of ****sexuals. I will fight for the rights of the children---truly the abused in our society while the adults run around and claim their right to divorce, be unfaithful, unchaste, have sex with whomever they want and then try to define it anyway they want.