Gay Marriage

[asdf]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

And human sexuality goes far deeper than just preferences---ask any rape victim or sexual abuse victim. Sexuality is socialized as well as other things.

Indeed—but sexual orientation goes far deeper than just sexuality. Which is why I prefer the term attractional orientation to be more clear.

Yet, it is still a behavior that defines it.

No more than there is a behavior that defines me as heterosexual.

But, maybe the gay rights movement is stretching this too far. Bigotry against race is far different rather than closer and to use the Martin Luther King argument is not right to blacks and what they went through.

Perhaps—but many civil rights leaders, from John Lewis to Coretta Scott King, see the parallels.

The argument has been said that ****sexuals have never had to sit on the back of the bus, use separate bathrooms, etc.

This is true. But they have been bullied, discriminated against in employment, har***ed, and—more to the point—denied fundamental equal justice under US law.

What the gay right movement wants is to be recognized as different but accepted as the same.

I'm not sure I follow.

What if it is "bigotry" because there are those in society who feel that the union that can and often does produce a child should be protected precisely because it can bring children into the world. Nature dictates that a ****sexual union cannot produce a child. Anyway you slice it, it is not the same thing. If it is not, then why should we pretend it is?

Heterosexual unions and opposite-sex marriages do not revolve around the ability to procreate.

Yes, has marriage been desecrated to little more than "informed consent"?

What? No. Informed consent is necessary, but not sufficient, for a marriage.

I am not restricting their behavior. But why should I think that that behavior is the same when it is clearly different.

Nobody is asking you to think any such thing. We're not arguing about your thoughts—we're arguing about the status under US law.

Ever heard of Pavlov?

Yes. There's no legitimate science to suggest that ****sexuality can be learned (or unlearned) as a Pavlovian response.

Sexuality is not just some biological setting. If you want to talk about statistics of ****sexuality, should we bring up the diseases (not talking about AIDS here) like hepa***is, because the body is not meant to function in the way they behave?

Even ***uming (for the sake of argument) that your "statistics" are based on sound, evidence-based scientific research, would it not be a solution to the problem to channeling sexual impulses within the context of a committed, monogamous, faithful, loving, lifelong relationship like marriage?

Increased violence---you explain why there is an increase in violence in ****sexual relationships (don't know myself).

My hypothesis is to blame The Closet. Being forced into a ghetto of societal disapproval, often facing rejection by family and friends and employers, hiding oneself from bigots . . . has to add a great deal of stress and uncertainty to a person.

What about the higher number of partners (also well researched.)

Applies to gay men, not lesbian women.

So, the question is, how as a society have we gone from understanding ****sexuality is a harmful behavior to embracing it?

Pretty much the same way we've gone from understanding left-handedness as "sinister", evil and unlucky to "embracing it"—viz., reality.

I am willing to consider equal protection under the law--I am also willing to be honest about the stats that come with ****sexuality and the obvious problems that go with it. Are you willing to do that as well?

"The stats" do not come with ****sexuality—they come with promiscuity and unsafe sex, whether same-sex or opposite sex.

It is still defined this way. Every single one of these definitions can be used. It speaks to a contractual agreement for the protection of those within the stewardship.

Um, no. My wife is not my property. She is not my rape victim. She is not a spoil of war, nor a political arrangement. She's certainly not one of many women.

Today, it is the children.

According to your tradition, perhaps. According to U.S. civil law? Nonsense.

Children still need to be protected and there is a reason that statistics show that children do best when they are raised by their biological mother and father who are still married. They don't do as well with divorce. They don't do as well with single parents. They don't do as well with adoption. That's the stats.

I've seen studies comparing two-parent households with single-parent households and step-households and foster-households, but not with adoptive two-parent households. Could you cite your source?

Anyway, ***uming you're correct, what's your solution? Prohibiting divorce under civil law? Prohibiting adoption? (Full disclosure: I am an adoptee, and do not take kindly to smears against adoption.)

But just as divorce, single parenthood, infidelity, out-of-wedlock children, etc. etc. have had a large toll on this society and a large cost to society, it is naive to think we could lose one more protection for children and it also not affect society. Men and women are not the same. There is more similarity between a 5 year old girl and an 80 year old woman than there is between a 50 year old man and a 50 year old woman. Medically, biologically, we are not the same creatures. If you don't believe in God, then at least accept Darwin created differnces in parents for a reason.

I know many. They are very nice---but I would say this to their face as readily as to yours. Men and women are different. Children deserve more than to be a pet to someone's dream of what they want in life.

Marriage is not about children. It's a red herring.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by asdf

Indeed—but sexual orientation goes far deeper than just sexuality. Which is why I prefer the term attractional orientation to be more clear.

Well, things that science has found to be deeper as well are things such as mental illness, alchoholism, etc. these, at least have found a genetic link. ****sexuality has yet to do that. Alcholism is a harmful behavior as well, but society recognizes it as such and does not embrace it.

No more than there is a behavior that defines me as heterosexual.

And one of the reasons that we have marriage is so that your "heterosexual" tendencies do not harm the possible offspring as the result of that tendency. That is one reason we have marriage--to give children a safe, protected place to grow. We can see what happens to the children when this union is desecrated and the ending result on society.

Perhaps—but many civil rights leaders, from John Lewis to Coretta Scott King, see the parallels.

And many blacks are offended by what they "see." It is not the same and to pretend it is is just using the black experience, once again, for their own social gains.

This is true. But they have been bullied, discriminated against in employment, har***ed, and—more to the point—denied fundamental equal justice under US law.

A marriage law will not change this---people who are bullies are bullies. Oh boy, are you suggesting we give ****sexuals "affirmative action" laws? And nobody even knows a ****sexual is ****sexual unless they announce it themselves, either verbally or by their behavior. I've been bullied for being Mormon, made fun of by a teacher in school in front of the cl***, been put down at work. I survived. If you believe what you are is okay--bullying doesn't make a difference. And a marriage law is not going to change this.

Heterosexual unions and opposite-sex marriages do not revolve around the ability to procreate.

Which is WHY they should not be given the name of "marriage" which one of the absolute possiblities with marriage is procreation--even for those who use birth-control.

Nobody is asking you to think any such thing. We're not arguing about your thoughts—we're arguing about the status under US law.

Why should state law not acknowledge a difference between a heterosexual union and a ****sexual union when clearly, there is a difference?

Yes. There's no legitimate science to suggest that ****sexuality can be learned (or unlearned) as a Pavlovian response.

But there are plenty of examples of ****sexuals who were in heterosexual relationships and then ****sexual relationships and then back. Obviously, ****sexuality is not just one way or the other. And in tribal countries, ****sexuality is often used as a way for more powerful men to control less powerful men.

Even ***uming (for the sake of argument) that your "statistics" are based on sound, evidence-based scientific research, would it not be a solution to the problem to channeling sexual impulses within the context of a committed, monogamous, faithful, loving, lifelong relationship like marriage?

Statistics also note that for ****sexuals, they do not define "marriage" as a "committed, monogamous, lifelong relationship." They want to be "married" but have a more open ended idea of what it is.

For gay men, sex outside the primary relationship is ubiquitous even during the first year. Gay men reportedly have sex with someone other than their partner in 66 percent of relationships within the first year, rising to approximately 90 percent if the relationship endures over five years.103 And the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study, only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years.104 Thus, the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships. http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0075.html

My hypothesis is to blame The Closet. Being forced into a ghetto of societal disapproval, often facing rejection by family and friends and employers, hiding oneself from bigots . . . has to add a great deal of stress and uncertainty to a person.

A hypothesis found to be incorrect when looking at the Netherlands where ****sexuality is far more accepted.

Applies to gay men, not lesbian women.

Among the difficulties in establishing the pathologies ***ociated with lesbianism is the problem of defining who is a lesbian.61 Study after study documents that the overwhelming majority of self-described lesbians have had sex with men.62 Australian researchers at an STD clinic found that only 7 percent of their lesbian sample had never had sexual contact with a male.63

Pretty much the same way we've gone from understanding left-handedness as "sinister", evil and unlucky to "embracing it"—viz., reality.

Just read this whole article. Being left handed does not increase your risk for early death, among other things.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0075.html

"The stats" do not come with ****sexuality—they come with promiscuity and unsafe sex, whether same-sex or opposite sex.

Which "marriage" is---monogamous, safe sex. But our society is desecrating what marriage is---plenty of infidelity, promiscuty, etc. But read the stats, ****sexuality does not desire to conform to "marriage" standards, rather to have the label without the standard.

Um, no. My wife is not my property. She is not my rape victim. She is not a spoil of war, nor a political arrangement. She's certainly not one of many women.

But you do have a stewardship over her well-being as well as she to you in a marriage relationship.

I've seen studies comparing two-parent households with single-parent households and step-households and foster-households, but not with adoptive two-parent households. Could you cite your source?

I could look it up, or you could. My husband does this type of stuff by profession....adoptions are good about 50% of the time, the other 50% of the time, the children struggle with iden***y issues and from my cousin who adopted three children and has 10 of her own---she stated that having genetic similarities helps a parent to understand their children better--sheis somewhat flying blind trying to help one of her adopted children who is having some problems. In other words, if OCD tends to run in the family, you recognize it and there have been generations that have figured out how to deal with it.

Anyway, ***uming you're correct, what's your solution? Prohibiting divorce under civil law? Prohibiting adoption? (Full disclosure: I am an adoptee, and do not take kindly to smears against adoption.)

Well, no-fault divorces certainly have not helped this country at all. This whole idea that adults should be happy and that chlidren will adjust has proven false. Infidelity and single parenthood in on the rise---do you really think that this is not affecting your own household or how much you pay in taxes---how much you must work to pay for other's children as well? etc. And the money is just one small portion to the reality. How are these kids doing in the cl***rooms? How about crime? It is rediculous to think we live in an island and other's behavior does not affect us.

Marriage is not about children. It's a red herring.

And this statement here is exactly why you support gay "marriage" because you do not understand the depth of the word and what it means TO children.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Well, things that science has found to be deeper as well are things such as mental illness, alchoholism, etc. these, at least have found a genetic link.

I find the comparison insulting and offensive.

****sexuality has yet to do that.

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.

Alcholism is a harmful behavior as well, but society recognizes it as such and does not embrace it.

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.

And one of the reasons that we have marriage is so that your "heterosexual" tendencies do not harm the possible offspring as the result of that tendency. That is one reason we have marriage--to give children a safe, protected place to grow. We can see what happens to the children when this union is desecrated and the ending result on society.

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).

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.

And many blacks are offended by what they "see." It is not the same and to pretend it is is just using the black experience, once again, for their own social gains.

Shrug.

A marriage law will not change this---people who are bullies are bullies. Oh boy, are you suggesting we give ****sexuals "affirmative action" laws? And nobody even knows a ****sexual is ****sexual unless they announce it themselves, either verbally or by their behavior. I've been bullied for being Mormon, made fun of by a teacher in school in front of the cl***, been put down at work. I survived. If you believe what you are is okay--bullying doesn't make a difference. And a marriage law is not going to change this.

Which is why I said "and more to the point—denied fundamental equal justice under US law."

Which is WHY they should not be given the name of "marriage" which one of the absolute possiblities with marriage is procreation--even for those who use birth-control.

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.

Why should state law not acknowledge a difference between a heterosexual union and a ****sexual union when clearly, there is a difference?

What is the difference?

But there are plenty of examples of ****sexuals who were in heterosexual relationships and then ****sexual relationships and then back. Obviously, ****sexuality is not just one way or the other. And in tribal countries, ****sexuality is often used as a way for more powerful men to control less powerful men.

Sometimes. And in other "tribal" cultures, ****sexual and "third sex" people are fully accepted and integrated into society.

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.

Statistics also note that for ****sexuals, they do not define "marriage" as a "committed, monogamous, lifelong relationship." They want to be "married" but have a more open ended idea of what it is.

Source?

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.

A hypothesis found to be incorrect when looking at the Netherlands where ****sexuality is far more accepted.

Source?

Just read this whole article. Being left handed does not increase your risk for early death, among other things.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0075.html

Originally Posted by The Health Risks of Gay Sex

the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships.

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.

Which "marriage" is---monogamous, safe sex. But our society is desecrating what marriage is---plenty of infidelity, promiscuty, etc. But read the stats, ****sexuality does not desire to conform to "marriage" standards, rather to have the label without the standard.

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.

But you do have a stewardship over her well-being as well as she to you in a marriage relationship.

Which is a completely different issue, and is a very far cry from the historical understandings of marriage I cited above.

I could look it up, or you could.

You ***erted it. You can substantiate it, or not, as you like.

My husband does this type of stuff by profession....adoptions are good about 50% of the time, the other 50% of the time, the children struggle with iden***y issues and from my cousin who adopted three children and has 10 of her own---she stated that having genetic similarities helps a parent to understand their children better--sheis somewhat flying blind trying to help one of her adopted children who is having some problems. In other words, if OCD tends to run in the family, you recognize it and there have been generations that have figured out how to deal with it.

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.

Well, no-fault divorces certainly have not helped this country at all. This whole idea that adults should be happy and that chlidren will adjust has proven false. Infidelity and single parenthood in on the rise---do you really think that this is not affecting your own household or how much you pay in taxes---how much you must work to pay for other's children as well? etc. And the money is just one small portion to the reality. How are these kids doing in the cl***rooms? How about crime? It is rediculous to think we live in an island and other's behavior does not affect us.

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.

And this statement here is exactly why you support gay "marriage" because you do not understand the depth of the word and what it means TO children.

You're pining for something that never existed.

[BigJulie]

[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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Source?

I gave you the link for the whole article. Did you read it?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[asdf]

My reply is too long; I'll have to split it into two posts.

Originally Posted by BigJulie

And yet alcholism and sexual behavior are both based on behaviors while skin color is not.

How many times do we have to go over this—sexual behavior is (um, rather by definition) based on behavior; attractional orientation is not.

Please provide something other than a WIKI.

Seriously? You're complaining about source objectivity while linking me to "catholiceducation.org"? I'm dumbstruck.

Nonetheless, read what I offered at Wiki again: "a decent summary and links to further resources on the empirical research". Take the first example, Twin Studies. You'll find a summary within the text, as well as footnotes leading to the studies, in this case to the empirical, peer-reviewed scientific journals American Journal of Sociology, the American Neurological ***ociation's Journal of nervous and mental disease, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and Archives of sexual behavior.

Regardless, behaviors that are harmful, even if genetic, such as alcholism, are not embraced by society.

You have yet to establish that a ****sexual orientation is harmful, and even if you had, it does not follow that same-sex relationships should be criminalized, or driven underground, or any other method of legal discrimination.

Even if your slanderous comparison to addictions were accurate, the government does not prohibit people from purchasing alcohol (even alcoholics!) or tobacco.

Did you even read the article I provided you.

I read it about as thoroughly as I'd read this book—

“THE NEGRO A BEAST”
. . . OR . . .
“IN THE IMAGE OF GOD”
The Reasoner of the Age, the Revelator of the Century!
The Bible as it is!
The Negro and His Relation to the Human Family!
The Negro a beast, but created with articulate speech,
and hands, that he may be of service to
his master—the White man.
The Negro not the Son of Ham,
Neither can it be proven by the Bible, and the argument
of the theologian who would claim such, melts
to mist before the thunderous and
convincing arguments of this
masterful book.

—(pdf), printed in 1900, arguing that black people are not humans. (That's a heck of a ***le, though, I must admit.) Or the 1894 book Revolted Woman: Past, Present, and to Come, arguing that if women gain civil equality, they will have deformed children and destroy the human race.

Which is to say, no. I skimmed through it as a curiosity, for its bad logic and bigotry, but I felt no need to closely ****yze its arguments.

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.

1. Many gay men do not have **** sex.
2. Virtually no lesbians have **** sex.
3. Many heterosexual couples have **** sex.

**** sex is not a "****sexual sexual practice".

****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.

You're welcome to your private idiosyncratic definition, but you shouldn't expect reality to bend to your will. As I've said before—from my earliest childhood memories, the entirety of my schoolboy crushes—whether on actors, cl***mates, or whatever—were women and girls. All of this before I even knew what sex was.

I have always been heterosexual.

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.

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.

You're welcome to believe all this, but none of it has anything to do with the legality of marriage, either descriptively or prescriptively.

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.

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.

I have yet to see evidence that two men or two women are incapable of providing healthy, stable, loving homes for their children, either adoptive or natural. In any case, adoption law is a separate issue from marriage law. Married couples who are unstable or have mental health issues are prohibited from adopting, no? So if the empirical evidence actually showed that gay people are bad at parenting, then prohibit them from parenting. Prohibiting them from marrying is a non sequitur.

Yes, and we can see from tribal experiences, that this open sex policies has resulted in disaster and even the discontinuation of many tribes.

Source? I've never heard anything of the sort.

[asdf]

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.

You're welcome to believe that. Reality will continue to disagree with you.

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?

What reason do I have to believe that catholiceducation.org provides a fair, accurate, and well-balanced summary of legitimate, empirical scientific research?

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?

I have no idea why you would think that two people committing their lives to each other, pledging their mutual love, and creating familial bonds equates to "unbridled p***ions".

It's one of the most bizarre things I've heard in some time.

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.

You are cons***utionally prohibited from "depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [or denying] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Prohibiting loving couples from establishing committed, loving relationships; with the same rights, benefits and protections opposite-sex relationships are automatically given; on the basis of nothing more than religious belief and traditional animus; is a pretty clear violation.

We'll see. I have no doubt that anti-marriage equality laws will be overturned; I just hope (and work) for it to be sooner rather than later. But I have every reason to believe that marriage equality will be as uncontroversial within 50 years as our views on Jim Crow laws are today.

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.

As I said, your beliefs about mutual submission within marriage are not the historical view in the instances I cited upthread.

As you are adopted, I thought you would be interested in looking up these stats.

Sure, I'll take a look if you care to provide a link to a credible source. I've seen some research indicating no difference between the well-being of adoptees and biological children when other factors are controlled for, but I'm willing to look if you'd like to support your ***ertions to the contrary.

I'm not going to go out of my way to track down research to support your ***ertions. I'm not that interested.

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.

If adoption is worse than biological parents but better than no parents/orphanages/single parent homes/abusive parents/..., you've got a hierarchy, but no basis for prohibiting some of those adoptive parents from being married to each other. It's just a weird red herring.

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.

That's not what I said. If you want to have a conversation with me, please don't put words into my mouth.

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.

Some people are gay. One day you may get over it.

[asdf]

Just a fun little statistic to add to the conversation: there are more than 100000 children currently waiting to be adopted in the US.

Oh, and 31 states discriminate against gay and lesbian families in their adoption laws.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by asdf

Just a fun little statistic to add to the conversation: there are more than 100000 children currently waiting to be adopted in the US.

Oh, and 31 states discriminate against gay and lesbian families in their adoption laws.

Just for those who want to read the article (yes, from a catholic site) but written by an M.D. with well cited resources. Here it is.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0075.html

asdf made it plainly obvious she did not read it--along with her statements that she didn't.

I think the two sides have been presented if readers read the article--then they can decide for themselves.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Just for those who want to read the article (yes, from a catholic site) but written by an M.D. with well cited resources. Here it is.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0075.html

asdf made it plainly obvious she did not read it--along with her statements that she didn't.

I think the two sides have been presented if readers read the article--then they can decide for themselves.

Oh, by all means, I'd encourage people to read "both sides" too—one "side" offering a broad sweep of the mainstream evidence-based peer-reviewed scientific literature, and the other "side" offering a Catholic propaganda site offering skewed post facto rationalizations in a badly veiled attempt to justify a predetermined theological belief.

Teach the controversy!

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by asdf

Oh, by all means, I'd encourage people to read "both sides" too—one "side" offering a broad sweep of the mainstream evidence-based peer-reviewed scientific literature, and the other "side" offering a Catholic propaganda site offering skewed post facto rationalizations in a badly veiled attempt to justify a predetermined theological belief.

Teach the controversy!

Here is the first third of the list of what you call "Catholic proganda" offering what you say is a skewed "post facto" rationalizations--that this M.D. uses as resources. In fact, I don't know if I recall much of any real data asdf has provided. It appears asdf appears to use insults as an argument against real data and research in concluding her opinion.

Endnotes

"Tracking the Hidden Epidemics: Trends in STDs in the United States, 2000," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), available at www.cdc.gov.
Becky Birtha, "Gay Parents and the Adoption Option," The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 04, 2002, www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/ 2787531.htm; Grant Pick, "Make Room for Daddy — and Poppa," The Chicago Tribune Internet Edition, March 24, 2002, www.chicagotribune.com/features/magazine/chi- 0203240463mar24.story
Ellen C. Perrin, et al., "Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents," Pediatrics, 109(2): 341-344 (2002).
Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 112, New York: Penguin Group, 1998 (quoting gay writer Michael Lynch).
Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, ****sexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.
Leon McKusick, et al., "Reported Changes in the Sexual Behavior of Men at Risk for AIDS, San Francisco, 1982-84 — the AIDS Behavioral Research Project," Public Health Reports, 100(6): 622-629, p. 625, Table 1 (November- December 1985). In 1982 respondents reported an average of 4.7 new partners in the prior month; in 1984, respondents reported an average of 2.5 new partners in the prior month.
"Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men — San Francisco, California, 1994-1997," Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, CDC, 48(03): 45-48, p. 45 (January 29, 1999).
This was evident by the late 80's and early 90's. Jeffrey A. Kelly, PhD, et al., "Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/ Human Immunodeficiency Virus Risk Behavior Among Gay Men in Small Cities," Archives of Internal Medicine, 152: 2293-2297, pp. 2295-2296 (November 1992); Donald R. Hoover, et al., "Estimating the 1978-1990 and Future Spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Subgroups of ****sexual Men," American Journal of Epidemiology, 134(10): 1190-1205, p. 1203 (1991).
A lesbian pastor made this ***ertion during a question and answer session that followed a presentation the author made on ****sexual health risks at the Chatauqua Ins***ute in Western New York, summer 2001.
Paul Van de Ven, et al., "Facts & Figures: 2000 Male Out Survey," p. 20 & Table 20, monograph published by National Centre in HIV Social Research Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of New South Wales, February 2001.
Rotello, pp. 43-46.
Ibid., pp. 165-172.
Hoover, et al., Figure 3.
"Basic Statistics," CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm. (Nearly 8% (50,066) of men with AIDS had sex with men and used intravenous drugs. These men are included in the 64% figure (411,933) of 649,186 men who have been diagnosed with AIDS.)
Figures from a study presented at the Infectious Diseases Society of America meeting in San Francisco and reported by Christopher Heredia, "Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F.: Gay, bisexual men affected most," San Francisco Chronicle, October 26, 2001, www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/26/MN7489 3.DTL.
Catherine Hutchinson, et al., "Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics," Archives of Internal Medicine, 151: 511-516, p. 513 (1991).
Katherine Fethers, Caron Marks, et al., "Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women," Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345- 349, p. 347 (October 2000).
James Price, et al., "Perceptions of cervical cancer and pap smear screening behavior by Women's Sexual Orientation," Journal of Community Health, 21(2): 89-105 (1996); Daron Ferris, et al., "A Neglected Lesbian Health Concern: Cervical Neoplasia," The Journal of Family Practice, 43(6): 581-584, p. 581 (December 1996); C. Skinner, J. Stokes, et al., "A Case-Controlled Study of the Sexual Health Needs of Lesbians," Sexually Transmitted Infections, 72(4): 277-280, Abstract (1996).
The Gay and Lesbian Medical ***ociation (GLMA) recently published a press release en***led "Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers" (July 17, 2002), www.glma.org/news/ releases/n02071710gaythings.html. The list includes: HIV/AIDS (Safe Sex), Substance Use, Depression/ Anxiety, Hepa***is Immunization, STDs, Prostate/ Testicular/Colon Cancer, Alcohol, Tobacco, Fitness and **** Papilloma.
R. R. Wilcox, "Sexual Behaviour and Sexually Transmitted Disease Patterns in Male ****sexuals," British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(3): 167-169, 167 (1981).
Robert T. Michael, et al., Sex in America: a Definitive Survey, pp. 140-141, Table 11, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1994; Rotello, pp. 75-76.
Rotello, p. 92.
Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, "Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits," Science, 27(224): 390-392 (1984).
S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, "Immune Responses to Spermatozoa in ****sexual Men," Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341 (1983).
Anne Rompalo, "Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in ****sexual Men," Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6): 1633-1645 (November 1990); "**** Health for Men and Women," LGBTHealthChannel, www.gayhealthchannel.com/****health/; "Safer Sex (MSM) for Men who Have Sex with Men," LGBTHealthChannel, www.gayhealthchannel.com/stdmsm/.
"Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Among Men Who Have Sex With Men — King County, Washington, 1997-1999," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 48(35): 773-777 (September 10, 1999).
Heredia, "Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F.: Gay, bisexual men affected most."
"Changing Patterns of Groups at High Risk for Hepa***is B in the United States," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 37(28): 429-432, p. 437 (July 22, 1988). Hepa***is B and C are viral diseases of the liver.
Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, et al., The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States, p. 293, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994; Michael, et al., p. 176; David Forman and Clair Chilvers, "Sexual Behavior of Young and Middle-Aged Men in England and Wales," British Medical Journal, 298: 1137-1142 (1989); and Gary Remafedi, et al., "Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents," Pediatrics, 89: 714-721 (1992). See appendix A.

[BigJulie]

Here is the second part of the list of resources used which asdf sees as merely propoganda.

Mads Melbye, Charles Rabkin, et al., "Changing patterns of **** cancer incidence in the United States, 1940-1989," American Journal of Epidemiology, 139: 772-780, p. 779, Table 2 (1994).
James Goedert, et al., for the AIDS-Cancer Match Study Group, "Spectrum of AIDS-***ociated malignant disorders," The Lancet, 351: 1833-1839, p. 1836 (June 20, 1998).
"**** Health for Men and Women," LGBTHealthChannel, www.gayhealthchannel.com/****health/; J. E. Barone, et al., "Management of Foreign Bodies and Trauma of the Rectum," Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, 156(4): 453-457 (April 1983).
Henry Kazal, et al., "The gay bowel syndrome: Clinicopathologic correlation in 260 cases," Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science, 6(2): 184-192 (1976).
Glen E. Hastings and Richard Weber, "Use of the term 'Gay Bowel Syndrome,'" reply to a letter to the editor, American Family Physician, 49(3): 582 (1994).
Ibid.; E. K. Markell, et al., "Intestinal Parasitic Infections in ****sexual Men at a San Francisco Health Fair," Western Journal of Medicine, 139(2): 177-178 (August, 1983).
"Hepa***is A among ****sexual Men — United States, Canada, and Australia," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 41(09): 155, 161-164 (March 06, 1992).
Rompalo, p. 1640.
H. Naher, B. Lenhard, et al., "Detection of Epstein-Barr virus DNA in **** s****ings from HIV-positive ****sexual men," Archives of Dermatological Research, 287(6): 608- 611, Abstract (1995).
B. L. Carlson, N. J. Fiumara, et al., "Isolation of Neisseria meningitidis from anogenital specimens from ****sexual men," Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 7(2): 71-73 (April 1980).
P. Paulet and G. Stoffels, "Maladies anorectales sexuellement transmissibles" ["Sexually-Transmissible Anorectal Diseases"], Revue Medicale Bruxelles, 10(8): 327-334, Abstract (October 10, 1989).
"Hepa***is A among ****sexual Men — United States, Canada, and Australia," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 41(09): 155, 161-164 (March 06, 1992).
Ibid.
C. M. Thorpe and G. T. Keutsch, "Enteric bacterial pathogens: Shigella, Salmonella, Campylobacter," in K. K. Holmes, P. A. Mardh, et al., (Eds.), Sexually Transmitted Diseases (3rd edition), p. 549, New York: McGraw-Hill Health Professionals Division, 1999.
Tim Bonfield, "Typhoid traced to sex encounters," Cincinnati Enquirer, April 26, 2001; Erin McClam, "Health Officials Document First Sexual Transmission of Typhoid in U.S.," ***ociated Press, April 25, 2001, www.thebody.com/ cdc/news_updates_archive/apr26_01/typhoid.html. A representative of the Foodborne and Diarrheal Diseases Branch, Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases at the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, confirmed this report and provided a link to the AP story on October 4, 2002.
Jeffrey Martin, et al., "Sexual Transmission and the Natural History of Human Herpes Virus 8 Infection," New England Journal of Medicine, 338(14): 948-954, p. 952 (1998).
Alexandra M. Levine, "Kaposi's Sarcoma: Far From Gone," paper presented at 5th International AIDS Malignancy Conference, April 23-25, 2001, Bethesda, Maryland, www.medscape.com/viewarticle/420749.
"Paraphilias," Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, p. 576, Washington: American Psychiatric ***ociation, 2000; Karla Jay and Allen Young, The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles, pp. 554-555, New York: Summit Books (1979).
Jay and Young, pp. 554-555.
Sade, Marquis de, Justine or Good Conduct Well Chastised (1791), New York: Grove Press (1965).
Michigan Rope internet advertisement for "Bondage and Beyond," which was scheduled for February 9-10, 2002, near Detroit, Michigan, www.michiganrope.com/ MichiganRopeWorkshop.html. The explicit nature of the advertisement was changed following unexpected publicity, and the hotel where the conference was scheduled ultimately canceled it. Marsha Low, "Hotel Ties Noose Around 2-Day Bondage Meeting," Detroit Free Press, January 25, 2002, www.freep.com/news/locoak/ nrope25_20020125.htm.
Allyson Smith, "Ramada to host 'Vicious Valentine' Event," WorldNet Daily, February 14, 2002, www.worldnetdaily. com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26453; "Vicious Valentine 5 Celebrates Mardi Gras, Feb 15-17, 2002," www.leatherquest.com/events/vv2002.htm.
The sadistic rape of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising on September 26, 1999, left him dead. See Andrew Sullivan, "The Death of Jesse Dirkhising," The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 1, 2001.
Jay and Young, pp. 554-555.
Gay and Lesbian Medical ***ociation, "MSM: Clinician's Guide to Incorporating Sexual Risk ***essment in Routine Visits," www.glma.org/medical/clinical/msm_***essment. html.
S. Bygdeman, "Gonorrhea in men with ****sexual contacts. Serogroups of isolated gonococcal strains related to antibiotic susceptibility, site of infection, and symptoms," British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(5): 320-324, Abstract (October 1981).
As of January 1, 1999, the National Cancer Ins***ute (NCI) estimated the cancer prevalence in the United States to be 8.9 million. "Estimated US Cancer Prevalence Counts: Who Are Our Cancer Survivors in the US?," Cancer Control & Population Sciences, National Cancer Ins***ute, April 2002, www.cancercontrol.cancer.gov/ocs/prevalence. In 1999, the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated 1,221,800 new cancer cases in the US and an estimated 563,100 cancer related deaths, "Cancer Facts and Figures 1999," p. 4, American Cancer Society, Inc., 1999, www.cancer.org/ downloads/STT/F&F99.pdf; in 2000, the ACS estimated 1,220,100 new cancer cases and 552,200 deaths from cancer, "Cancer Facts and Figures 2000," p. 4, American Cancer Society, Inc., 2000, www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/ F&F00.pdf; in 2001, the ACS estimated a total number of 1,268,000 new cases of cancer and 553,400 deaths, "Cancer Facts and Figures 2001," p. 5, American Cancer Society, Inc., 2001, www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/ F&F2001.pdf. This results in an estimated growth of 2,041,200 new cancer cases over the past three years and an estimated 10,941,200 people with cancer as of January 1, 2002. In 2001 there were 793,025 reported AIDS cases. "Basic Statistics," CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm.
The federal spending for AIDS research in 2001 was $2,247,000,000, while the spending for cancer research was not even double that at $4,376,400,000. "Funding For Research Areas of Interest," National Ins***ute of Health, 2002, www4.od.nih.gov/officeofbudget/ FundingResearchAreas.htm.
Ibid.; "Fast Stats Ato Z: Diabetes," CDC — National Center for Health Statistics, June 04, 2002, www.cdc.gov/nchs/ fastats/diabetes.htm; "Fast Stats A to Z: Heart Disease," CDC — National Center for Health Statistics, June 06, 2002, www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/heart.htm.
Gay and Lesbian Medical ***ociation Press Release, "Ten Things Lesbians Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers" (July 17, 2002), www.glma.org/news/ releases/n02071710lesbianthings.html. The list includes Breast Cancer, Depression/Anxiety, Gynecological Cancer, Fitness, Substance Use, Tobacco, Alcohol, Domestic Violence, Osteoporosis and Heart Health.
Michael, et al., p. 176 ("about 1.4 percent of women said they thought of themselves as ****sexual or bisexual and about 2.8% of the men identified themselves in this way").
See Appendix A.
Skinner, et al., Abstract; Ferris, et al. p. 581; James Price, et al., p. 90; see Appendix A.
Katherine Fethers, et al., "Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women," Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345-349, p. 348 (2000).
Ibid., p. 347.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 348.
Ibid., p. 347, Table 1; Susan D. Cochran, et al., "Cancer- Related Risk Indicators and Preventive Screening Behaviors Among Lesbians and Bisexual Women," American Journal of Public Health, 91(4): 591-597 (April 2001); Juliet Richters, Sara Lubowitz, et al., "HIV risks among women in contact with Sydney's gay and lesbian community," Venereology, 11(3): 35-38 (1998); Juliet Richters, Sarah Bergin, et al., "Women in Contact with the Gay and Lesbian Community: Sydney Women and Sexual Health Survey 1996 and 1998," National Centre in HIV Social Research, University of New South Wales, 1999.

[BigJulie]

And here is the third part of the citations used for this "propaganda" article according to asdf.


I list this just so others can see how well researched this article is, in case they are interested in the other side of this argument.

Fethers, et al., p. 347 and Table 1.
Barbara Berger, Shelley Kolton, et al., "Bacterial vaginosis in lesbians: a sexually transmitted disease," Clinical Infectious Diseases, 21: 1402-1405 (1995).
E. H. Koumans, et al., "Preventing adverse sequelae of Bacterial Vaginosis: a Public Health Program and Research Agenda," Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 28(5): 292-297 (May 2001); R. L. Sweet, "Gynecologic Conditions and Bacterial Vaginosis: Implications for the Non-Pregnant Patient," Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 8(3): 184-190 (2000).
Kathleen M. Morrow, Ph.D., et al., "Sexual Risk in Lesbians and Bisexual Women," Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical ***ociation, 4(4): 159-165, p. 161 (2000).
Ibid., p. 159.
For example, Judith Bradford, Caitlin Ryan, and Esther D. Rothblum, "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2): 228-242 (1994); Richard C. Pillard, "Sexual orientation and mental disorder," Psychiatric Annals, 18(1): 52-56 (1988); see also Mubarak S. Dahir, "The Gay Community's New Epidemic," Daily News (June 5, 2000), www.gaywired.com/story detail.cfm?Section=12&ID=148&ShowDate=1.
Katherine A. O'Hanlan, M.D., et al., "****phobia As a Health Hazard," Report of the Gay & Lesbian Medical ***ociation, pp. 3, 5, www.ohanlan.com/phobiahzd.htm; Laura Dean, et al., "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health: Findings & Concerns," Journal of the Gay & Lesbian Medical ***ociation, 4(3): 102-151, pp. 102, 116 (2000).
"Netherlands Ends Discrimination in Civil Marriage: Gays to Wed," Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Press Release, March 30, 2001, http://lambdalegal.org/cgibin/ pages/documents/record?record=814.
Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001).
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 89.
Ibid., p. 90 (emphasis added).
Ibid.
Erica Goode, "With Fears Fading, More Gays Spurn Old Preventive Message," New York Times, August 19, 2001.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
"Officials Voice Alarm Over Halt in AIDS Decline," New York Times, August 14, 2001.
"A uniform definition of a circuit party does not exist, partly because such parties continue to evolve. However, a circuit party tends to be a multi-event weekend that occurs each year at around the same time and in the same town . . . ." Gordon Mansergh, Grant Colfax, et al., "The Circuit Party Men's Health Survey: Findings and Implications for Gay and Bisexual Men," American Journal of Public Health, 91(6): 953-958, p. 953 (June 2001).
Ibid., p. 955.
Ibid., p. 956.
Ibid., pp. 956-957, Tables 2 & 3.
Ibid., pp. 956-957.
Ibid., p. 957. The authors' recommendation was more education.
Julie Robotham, "Safe sex by arrangement as gay men reject condoms," Sydney Morning Herald, June 7, 2001. Data source: 2000 Male Out Survey, National Centre in HIV Social Research, Australia.
R. S. Hogg, S. A. Strathdee, et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661, p. 659 (1997). Death as the result of HIV infection has dropped significantly since 1996. "Life Expectancy Hits New High in 2000; Mortality Declines for Several Leading Causes of Death," CDC News Release, October 10, 2001, www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01news/mort2k.htm. Nevertheless, it remains a significant factor in shortened life expectancy for ****sexual prac***ioners.
Press Release, Smoking costs nation $150 billion each year in health costs, lost productivity, CDC, Office of Communication, April 12, 2002, www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/ pressrel/r020412.htm.
Hogg, et al., p. 660.
Ibid.
"Hepa***is A vaccination of men who have sex with men — Atlanta, Georgia, 1996-1997," Morbidity and Mortality Report, CDC, 47(34): 708-711 (September 4, 1998).
Robert T. Michael, et al., p. 89.
Ibid., p. 101.
Camille Paglia, "I'll take religion over gay culture," Salon.com online magazine, June 1998, www.frontpagemag.com/archives/guest_column/ paglia/gayculture.htm.
Gordon Mansergh, Grant Colfax, et al., p. 955.
Joseph Harry, Gay Couples, p. 116, New York: Praeger Books, 1984.
Marcel T. Saghir, M.D. and Eli Robins, M.D., Male and Female ****sexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation, p. 57 Table 4.13, p. 225 Table 12.10, Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company, 1973.
The existence of limited ****sexual relationships in primitive cultures, or even extensive ****sexuality in declining civilizations, such as those cited by advocates of same-sex marriage, does not challenge the existence of a prevailing norm. See, for example, William N. Eskridge, Jr., The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, Chapter 2, New York: The Free Press, 1996.
Joseph D. Unwin, "Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behaviour," pp. 18-19, reprint of Oxford University Press publication of speech given before the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society, March 27, 1935.
For example, see the website of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, Inc., www.ncsfreedom.org.
"The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate cons***utional protections . . . ." 1992 Policy Guide of the ACLU, Policy #91, p. 175.
Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002; Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman, "A Meta-****ytic Examination of ***umed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples," Psychological Bulletin, 124(1): 22-53 (July 1998).
Paglia, June 23, 1998.
Rotello, p. 42.
Goode, August 19, 2001.
Ibid.
See Michael Hamrick, The Hidden Costs of Domestic Partner Benefits, pp. 3-4 (Corporate Resource Council, 2002).
David Gelman, et al., "Tune In, Come Out," Newsweek, p. 70, November 8, 1993.
"Iowa study suggests tolerance of ****sexuals is growing," ***ociated Press, March 23, 2001.
Sally Kohn, The Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual for Employee Benefits, p. 1, the Policy Ins***ute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, www.ngltf.org/ downloads/dp-/dp_99.pdf.
John Horgan, "Gay Genes, Revisited," Scientific American, p. 26, November 1995.
Matthew Brelis, "The Fading 'Gay Gene,'" The Boston Globe, March 20, 2002, p. C1.
Michael, et al., p. 172.
Lynn Scherr, "Lesbian Leader Loves a Man," ABCNews.com, April 17, 1998.
"Former Lesbian Anne Heche Engaged to Cameraman," ABCNews.com, June 1, 2001 (emphasis added), reprinted at http://www.gaywired.com/index.cfm?li...storydetail.cf m&Section=68&ID=5304.
"The Facts: Anne Heche," Eonline.msn, April 1, 2002, http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/...,31319,00.html.
"Sinead O'Connor to Marry a Man," Reuters, June 27, 2000, www.q.co.za/2001.2001.06.27-sinead.html.
"Sinead Drops out of Wotapalava Tour," JAM! Music, May 31, 2001, www.canoe.ca/JamMusicArtistsO/oconnor_ sinead.html.
John Stoltenberg, "Living with Andrea Dworkin," Lambda Book Report, May/June 1994, reprinted at www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/LivingWithAnd rea.html.
Julie Robotham, "Safe sex by arrangement as gay men reject condoms," The Sydney Morning Herald, June 7, 2001. Data source: "2000 Male Out Survey," National Centre in HIV Social Research, Australia.
Michael, et al., p. 172.
Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, et al., The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States, p. 293, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994; Michael, et al., p. 176; David Forman and Clair Chilvers, "Sexual Behavior of Young and Middle-Aged Men in England and Wales," British Medical Journal, 298: 1137-1142 (1989); and Gary Remafedi, et al., "Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents," Pediatrics, 89: 714-721 (1992).

[/QUOTE]

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by asdf

Just a fun little statistic to add to the conversation: there are more than 100000 children currently waiting to be adopted in the US.

Oh, and 31 states discriminate against gay and lesbian families in their adoption laws.

Did anyone else find it interesting that when M***. accepted "gay marriage" that by so doing, Catholic Charities were shut down because they would not adopt children into gay households. Accordingly, it has been reported that 50% of all adoptions in M***. were done through Catholic Charities.

In other words, it appears that the argument for "gay marriage" is actually an argument against religious adoption agencies. *sigh*

[asdf]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Did anyone else find it interesting that when M***. accepted "gay marriage" that by so doing, Catholic Charities were shut down because they would not adopt children into gay households. Accordingly, it has been reported that 50% of all adoptions in M***. were done through Catholic Charities.

Catholic Charities were not shut down—they chose to shut themselves down rather than refrain from discriminating against same-sex families. If you're going to accept taxpayer money in providing a public service, you have to abide by public non-discrimination laws.

In other words, it appears that the argument for "gay marriage" is actually an argument against religious adoption agencies. *sigh*

In other words, Catholic Charities put their antipathy for gay people ahead of their desire to help children. That's what calls itself "family values" in the US.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by asdf

Catholic Charities were not shut down—they chose to shut themselves down rather than refrain from discriminating against same-sex families. If you're going to accept taxpayer money in providing a public service, you have to abide by public non-discrimination laws.



In other words, Catholic Charities put their antipathy for gay people ahead of their desire to help children. That's what calls itself "family values" in the US.

The union between a man and a woman and the definite possibility of offspring is a sacred union to many religious organizations.

Were it not for religion, the word "marriage" nor the meaning of it would not exist. It appears that the government wants to rape the church of what it holds precious.

Is that what gay rights mean? That if we do not accept this behavior, that our ins***utions are penalized? What does this mean for adoptions? For the right of who to marry? Can a pastor turn down a couple because they are gay or will his church be taken from him? Are we going to force doctors to perform abortions because of women's rights, and pastors to perform gay marriages because of gay rights?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

The union between a man and a woman and the definite possibility of offspring is a sacred union to many religious organizations.

Fantastic. More power to them.

Why do you believe that what is "sacred to many religious organizations" should have any impact on civil law in a multicultural, multi-faith, secular, Cons***utional Republic like the US of A?

Were it not for religion, the word "marriage" nor the meaning of it would not exist.

Nonsense. Marriage has existed across pretty much every culture throughout recorded history. As has religion, but there's no reason to believe that marriage came about as a result of religion.

It appears that the government wants to rape the church

That's an extremely offensive metaphor.

Is that what gay rights mean? That if we do not accept this behavior, that our ins***utions are penalized?

Of course not. It means that if you accept government funds, you must not discriminate. You're more than welcome to refrain from accepting government funds.

What does this mean for adoptions?

Uh, perhaps that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against?

For the right of who to marry?

You will remain free to marry the consenting adult of your choosing.

Can a pastor turn down a couple because they are gay

Yes.

or will his church be taken from him?

No.

Are we going to force doctors to perform abortions because of women's rights,

Red herring.

and pastors to perform gay marriages because of gay rights?

No.

Pastors are not currently coerced by the government into performing marriages they object to. If your pastor doesn't want to perform the marriage between Rush Limbaugh and his fifth wife, he is not coerced into doing so. Catholic priests regularly refuse to perform marriages for non-Catholics. No violation of the law there at all. Churches can even discriminate based on race.

Your church is, and will remain, free to refrain from performing marriages except between a white heterosexual cisgendered fundamentalist Mormon man and a white heterosexual cisgendered fundamentalist Mormon woman.

You're simply not permitted to establish those requirements on those outside your religion by the force of US law.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by asdf

Fantastic. More power to them.

Why do you believe that what is "sacred to many religious organizations" should have any impact on civil law in a multicultural, multi-faith, secular, Cons***utional Republic like the US of A?

We've always had laws regarding behavior and what is acceptable to society and what isn't.

Nonsense. Marriage has existed across pretty much every culture throughout recorded history. As has religion, but there's no reason to believe that marriage came about as a result of religion.

I'll tell you what, go back through history and see if you can find one instance of 'marriage" that doesn't first originate with a religion.

That's an extremely offensive metaphor.

It is what is happening when a government can come in and dictate that very ins***ution in which marriage is founded.

Of course not. It means that if you accept government funds, you must not discriminate. You're more than welcome to refrain from accepting government funds.

I am not sure that Catholic charities received any government funds.

"TULSA, OKLAHOMA, January 4, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Catholic charitable organization has rejected government funding so it can uphold traditional Christian teachings and serve the poor with less bureaucratic red tape. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Tulsa has chosen to rely strictly upon the donations of private individuals and ins***utions."

So, how do you feel about Catholic charities being forced to accept gay couples for adoption even if they don't accept government funds?

Uh, perhaps that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against?

They are not being discriminated against. Being gay is not a skin color or race. Mariage is the union of a man and a woman. Gays are not being discriminated against, they want to redefine marriage as something other than it is. If I wanted to set up a place to sale books, I could. If I wanted to call that place a public library, I couldn't.

You will remain free to marry the consenting adult of your choosing.

Red herring.

Same issues---first we decide what is a "right" and then we force people do do as we think (especially if they get government funds).

[

You're simply not permitted to establish those requirements on those outside your religion by the force of US law.

[/QUOTE]
The law is a consensus of people as to what laws we should have. How do you think laws are established? You do know that people vote for those who they want to create laws and keep them enforced, right? You seem to think laws come out of thin air, which they don't.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

We've always had laws regarding behavior and what is acceptable to society and what isn't.

Indeed, but laws must be based promoting the common good, not simply in religious conviction, personal animus, or traditional prejudice.

I'll tell you what, go back through history and see if you can find one instance of 'marriage" that doesn't first originate with a religion.

You're the one claiming that marriage originated with religion. The onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim.

It is what is happening when a government can come in and dictate that very ins***ution in which marriage is founded.

The government already does dictate the ins***ution of marriage. The government allows equal access to marriage to divorced couples, even if your religion disapproves. It allows equal access to interracial couples, even if your religion disapproves. It allows inter-religious marriages, even if your religion disapproves.

To compare any of that to rape is extremely offensive.

I am not sure that Catholic charities received any government funds.

They did.

"Chicago—Catholic Charities announced Monday that it was ending its legal battle over Illinois' civil unions law and no longer was providing state-funded services."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov...tions-20111115

Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money.

(...) The bishops have followed colleagues in Washington, D.C., and M***achusetts who had jettisoned their adoption services rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us...vail.html?_r=1

Even your own article admits as much:

"TULSA, OKLAHOMA, January 4, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Catholic charitable organization has rejected government funding so it can uphold traditional Christian teachings and serve the poor with less bureaucratic red tape. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Tulsa has chosen to rely strictly upon the donations of private individuals and ins***utions."

So, how do you feel about Catholic charities being forced to accept gay couples for adoption even if they don't accept government funds?

If they reject government funds, they have the right to discriminate. I think it's unfortunate, of course, but they're within their rights to do so.

They are not being discriminated against.

You're welcome to believe that. Reality disagrees with you.

Being gay is not a skin color or race.

Has anyone claimed otherwise?

Mariage is the union of a man and a woman.

According to your religious beliefs, and the laws of some locations. In other locations that is not so.

Gays are not being discriminated against, they want to redefine marriage as something other than it is.

Marriage is a civil arrangement that confers some 1000+ rights and benefits to opposite-sex couples that it denies to same-sex couples. That is pretty much a textbook definition of discrimination. Nobody is "redefining" anything.

If I wanted to set up a place to sale books, I could. If I wanted to call that place a public library, I couldn't.

The law is a consensus of people as to what laws we should have. How do you think laws are established? You do know that people vote for those who they want to create laws and keep them enforced, right? You seem to think laws come out of thin air, which they don't.

"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
- U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by asdf

Indeed, but laws must be based promoting the common good, not simply in religious conviction, personal animus, or traditional prejudice.

And there are many in society that feel that the "common good" is to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman.

You're the one claiming that marriage originated with religion. The onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim.

Etymology

The modern English word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. (The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[11] The related English word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 C.E. and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Interesting that the word "marriage" is derived from the word mother.

The government already does dictate the ins***ution of marriage. The government allows equal access to marriage to divorced couples, even if your religion disapproves. It allows equal access to interracial couples, even if your religion disapproves. It allows inter-religious marriages, even if your religion disapproves.

But, all these marriage ultimately are defined by a husband and wife in which offspring are a possibility as a result of intercourse. Not so with ****sexuality.

To compare any of that to rape is extremely offensive.

It is how I see it. I see the government as raping the church of an ins***ution begun by it. Unless you can show otherwise...

They did.

"Chicago—Catholic Charities announced Monday that it was ending its legal battle over Illinois' civil unions law and no longer was providing state-funded services."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov...tions-20111115

Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money.

(...) The bishops have followed colleagues in Washington, D.C., and M***achusetts who had jettisoned their adoption services rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us...vail.html?_r=1

Even your own article admits as much:



If they reject government funds, they have the right to discriminate. I think it's unfortunate, of course, but they're within their rights to do so.

And goes with it that more children will be helped by gay marriages when in fact, in reality, more children are hurt by it.

You're welcome to believe that. Reality disagrees with you.

You are speaking to a Mormon, remember..where the state came in and said that a marriage was between one man and one woman? Hence, the state does make it its right to define marriage. Or do you think that polygamists were being discriminated against as well?

According to your religious beliefs, and the laws of some locations. In other locations that is not so.

And people are welcome to go where the laws comform to what they want in a society.

Marriage is a civil arrangement that confers some 1000+ rights and benefits to opposite-sex couples that it denies to same-sex couples. That is pretty much a textbook definition of discrimination. Nobody is "redefining" anything.

It did not start as a "civil arrangement"--it started as a religious arrangement. The rights came as laws to protect women and the offspring that may occur from a marriage. I do not disagree with "civil unions" in which gay couples can have those same protections.

"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
- U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943

Actually, the congress can undo the courts by creating a law.


Congress can check the power of the Supreme Court through the process of Cons***utional Amendment. While the Supreme Court can rule that a particular law is uncons***utional, it cannot rule that the Cons***ution itself is uncons***utional. If the Congress (and 3/4 of the state legislatures) approve a cons***utional amendment, it becomes the supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court cannot overrule the Cons***ution.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_C...#ixzz1jaV9pl8J

Even the Supreme Court has a check and a balance.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

And there are many in society that feel that the "common good" is to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman.

That's nice. Thankfully, one needs more than a "feeling" to establish civil law in a Cons***utional Republic.

Interesting that the word "marriage" is derived from the word mother.

So "mother" = "religion"?

In any case, you're obviously reading what you want to read. Your source did not say that the word "marriage" is derived from the word mother — it said that the word "matrimony" is derived from the word mother.

But, all these marriage ultimately are defined by a husband and wife in which offspring are a possibility as a result of intercourse. Not so with ****sexuality.

You're mistaken.

The government allows equal access to marriage to infertile couples, even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to elderly couples (i.e., couples where the woman is post-menopausal), even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to intentionally childless couples, even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to couples wherein one or more partners has had a hysterectomy or vasectomy, even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to couples wherein one or more partners is transgendered or asexual or hermaphroditic or having any number of physical or chromosomal anomalies that preclude reproduction—even if your religion disapproves.

It is how I see it. I see the government as raping the church of an ins***ution begun by it. Unless you can show otherwise...

You haven't offered anything except the imagery of violent sexual ***ault. You'd have to flesh out the metaphor a bit more before there's even anything to argue against.

And goes with it that more children will be helped by gay marriages when in fact, in reality, more children are hurt by it.

I'm afraid that reality does not agree with your perception of it.

You are speaking to a Mormon, remember..where the state came in and said that a marriage was between one man and one woman? Hence, the state does make it its right to define marriage. Or do you think that polygamists were being discriminated against as well?

You can throw in as many red herrings as you like. The fact remains that there are 1000+ rights and benefits under federal law that are automatically given to opposite-sex couples that are denied to same-sex couples.

And people are welcome to go where the laws comform to what they want in a society.

I'm afraid that's not how Cons***utional Republics work. You can't deny civil rights to a minority in one jurisdiction on the grounds that They Could Just Move.

It did not start as a "civil arrangement"--it started as a religious arrangement.

You have yet to establish that.

The rights came as laws to protect women and the offspring that may occur from a marriage.

Yes, the rights are beneficial to men, women and children. There is not, and never has been, a requirement that a couple reproduce naturally for their marriage to be authentic.

I do not disagree with "civil unions" in which gay couples can have those same protections.

That's good. Many of your co-religionists are still fighting that battle.

However, "separate but equal" has been ruled uncons***utional, so I don't believe that it will ultimately stand.

Again, you are personally free to regard a same-sex married couple as not-really-married, or civil-unioned, or whatever you'd like to think about when you think about them. It's just that your opinion on the matter is an insufficient basis for civil law.

Actually, the congress can undo the courts by creating a law.

Congress can check the power of the Supreme Court through the process of Cons***utional Amendment. While the Supreme Court can rule that a particular law is uncons***utional, it cannot rule that the Cons***ution itself is uncons***utional. If the Congress (and 3/4 of the state legislatures) approve a cons***utional amendment, it becomes the supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court cannot overrule the Cons***ution.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_C...#ixzz1jaV9pl8J

Even the Supreme Court has a check and a balance.

Indeed, and ultimately that's what you would need in order to codify marriage discrimination in U.S. law—a 3/4 majority in the Congress to overturn the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Cons***ution, which guarantee that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Have fun with that. And have fun telling yourself that you're "pro-Cons***ution" while actively working to overturn it.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by asdf

That's nice. Thankfully, one needs more than a "feeling" to establish civil law in a Cons***utional Republic.

Yes, which is why I don't agree that ****sexual couples can "feel" that their marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage and therefore claim it is a a right. I gave you research which shows that they are not the same and for many reasons.

So "mother" = "religion"?

No, offspring...which is why years ago, you weren't really considered "married" until it was consumated.

In any case, you're obviously reading what you want to read. Your source did not say that the word "marriage" is derived from the word mother — it said that the word "matrimony" is derived from the word mother.

In which "marriage" is derived.

You're mistaken.

The government allows equal access to marriage to infertile couples, even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to elderly couples (i.e., couples where the woman is post-menopausal), even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to intentionally childless couples, even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to couples wherein one or more partners has had a hysterectomy or vasectomy, even if your religion disapproves. The government allows equal access to marriage to couples wherein one or more partners is transgendered or asexual or hermaphroditic or having any number of physical or chromosomal anomalies that preclude reproduction—even if your religion disapproves.

Exceptions to the rule do not make the rule. Infertile couples may not stay infertile. Vasectomies can be reversed. The fact of the matter is, the rule (not the exception) of marriage is that offspring are a very distinct possibility. In fact, I think we could say statistically that married couples are 92% more likely to have children than a ****sexual couple (based on infertility rates). Which means that if a heterosexual couple gets married, their chances of having a child is 92% while the ****sexual couple is 0%.

I'm afraid that reality does not agree with your perception of it.

The reality in M***. is that more children were harmed by not receiving adoption services than were benefited by gay marriage---if that is your argument.

You can throw in as many red herrings as you like. The fact remains that there are 1000+ rights and benefits under federal law that are automatically given to opposite-sex couples that are denied to same-sex couples.

Easily solved by a "civil union."

I'm afraid that's not how Cons***utional Republics work. You can't deny civil rights to a minority in one jurisdiction on the grounds that They Could Just Move.

First it has to be established that it is a civil right. As noted, this is a behavioral issue. If we argue that a behavior is a civil right, then we could argue that a lot of behaviors that society does not like are a civil right.

You have yet to establish that.

Show me something older than the Bible that establishes relationships called "marriage" and we shall talk. I showed you my proof that marriage came from religion...show me your proof that it does not.

Yes, the rights are beneficial to men, women and children. There is not, and never has been, a requirement that a couple reproduce naturally for their marriage to be authentic.

Yes, there actually has been a requirement in past ages for a marriage to reproduce to be considered authentic...or at least attempt to reproduce....this is why someone can get their marriage annulled if it has never been consumated.

That's good. Many of your co-religionists are still fighting that battle.

However, "separate but equal" has been ruled uncons***utional, so I don't believe that it will ultimately stand.

Again, you are personally free to regard a same-sex married couple as not-really-married, or civil-unioned, or whatever you'd like to think about when you think about them. It's just that your opinion on the matter is an insufficient basis for civil law.

And so is your opinion an "insufficient basis for civil law." I showed you the research regarding the differences in ****sexual relationships to heterosexual relationships. I see a huge difference in these relationships. In fact, if a man or woman can see a difference when choosing a partner, then we as society should not be condemned for seeing a difference as well. If they do not see a difference when choosing a partner, then there is no reason to call themselves ****sexual.

Indeed, and ultimately that's what you would need in order to codify marriage discrimination in U.S. law—a 3/4 majority in the Congress to overturn the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Cons***ution, which guarantee that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Have fun with that. And have fun telling yourself that you're "pro-Cons***ution" while actively working to overturn it.

Well, at least you acknowledge that the "law" is what is established by the cons***ution rather than thinking it comes out of thin air as you seem to keep arguing.

P.S. I noticed you skipped over the idea that the state has already defined marriage between one man and one woman when it came to polygamy. Are you now going to argue that polygamy is a "right" as well?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Yes, which is why I don't agree that ****sexual couples can "feel" that their marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage and therefore claim it is a a right.

I agree. Marriage equality should not be based on feelings, but on objective reality.

I gave you research which shows that they are not the same and for many reasons.

You gave me propaganda from a religious website that disagrees with the scientific consensus.

No, offspring...

Wait, what? Now "offspring" = "religion"?

I think you've totally lost the plot. You were trying to substantiate your claim that marriage is rooted in religion. So far you've established that one of the English words derived from a compound Latin word involving "mother".

which is why years ago, you weren't really considered "married" until it was consumated.

Consummation ≠ childbearing. Your argument is all over the place.

In which "marriage" is derived.

That's not what your source says. Your source said that "marriage" comes from the Latin marītāre, and "matrimony" derives from the Latin mātrimōnium.

Exceptions to the rule do not make the rule.

They're not exceptions to any rule. They're examples that demonstrate that the rule doesn't exist.

Infertile couples may not stay infertile.

Vasectomies can be reversed.

And hysterectomies?

The fact of the matter is, the rule (not the exception) of marriage is that offspring are a very distinct possibility. In fact, I think we could say statistically that married couples are 92% more likely to have children than a ****sexual couple (based on infertility rates). Which means that if a heterosexual couple gets married, their chances of having a child is 92% while the ****sexual couple is 0%.

That's really not how statistics work. And it's all beside the point, because the government has no interest in whether a couple has children or not.

The reality in M***. is that more children were harmed by not receiving adoption services than were benefited by gay marriage---if that is your argument.

What? Children are harmed because they're not being placed in homes with stable, loving parents—because the Catholic Charities decided that discriminating against same-sex couples is more important than providing homes for children.

Easily solved by a "civil union."

Separate is (still) not equal.

But if you accept the premise (of the reality of the 1000+ rights and benefits denied to same-sex couples under federal law), why are you not working to make these "civil unions" happen?

First it has to be established that it is a civil right.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly established that marriage is a civil right. The U.S. is also a signatory to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, which establishes that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family".

As noted, this is a behavioral issue.

You have "noted", but you have not established, that attractional orientation is a behavioral issue. Meanwhile, in reality, ****sexuality remains neither more nor less a behavioral issue than heterosexuality.

Show me something older than the Bible that establishes relationships called "marriage" and we shall talk. I showed you my proof that marriage came from religion...show me your proof that it does not.

You did nothing of the sort. You showed me that one of the English words for marriage ("matrimony") has Latin roots in a word for "mother". Not a word about religion was provided, as "proof" or otherwise.

This (still) remains your claim, your responsibility to support.

Yes, there actually has been a requirement in past ages for a marriage to reproduce to be considered authentic...or at least attempt to reproduce....this is why someone can get their marriage annulled if it has never been consumated.

Consummation ≠ childbearing.

Yes, marriages have been annulled because of a couple's infertility. Are you arguing that that's a good thing?

And so is your opinion an "insufficient basis for civil law."

Indeed. The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Cons***ution, on the other hand, are excellent bases on which to establish civil law.

I showed you the research regarding the differences in ****sexual relationships to heterosexual relationships.

No, not really.

I see a huge difference in these relationships.

Correction: you imagine a huge difference in these relationships.

Do you know any same-sex couples?

In fact, if a man or woman can see a difference when choosing a partner, then we as society should not be condemned for seeing a difference as well. If they do not see a difference when choosing a partner, then there is no reason to call themselves ****sexual.

That's...utterly inane. If you can tell the difference between men and women, you're not gay. I don't even know where to start.

Well, at least you acknowledge that the "law" is what is established by the cons***ution rather than thinking it comes out of thin air as you seem to keep arguing.

If you'd been reading my words, rather than projecting onto me whatever it is you imagine, you might have noticed that my argument from the very beginning has been based in civil law, as established by We The People, in Cons***utional Republic of the U.S. of A.

P.S. I noticed you skipped over the idea that the state has already defined marriage between one man and one woman when it came to polygamy. Are you now going to argue that polygamy is a "right" as well?

It's a red herring, and I'm not biting.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by asdf

I agree. Marriage equality should not be based on feelings, but on objective reality.

And objective reality says that a relationship between two men or two women is not the same as the relationship between a man and a woman....that should be obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and a basic understanding of human anatomy.

You gave me propaganda from a religious website that disagrees with the scientific consensus.

You have never provided your "scientific consensus" but the web-site I gave you had a very well researched document. It appears to me that you ignore research if it is not done by someone who does not have your bias.

Wait, what? Now "offspring" = "religion"?

And to be a "mother" you must have offspring...hence the root word of "marriage" is derived from the acknowledgement of offspring.

I think you've totally lost the plot. You were trying to substantiate your claim that marriage is rooted in religion. So far you've established that one of the English words derived from a compound Latin word involving "mother".

No, now I give you two examples of how it comes to be---one is that we can see it is found in religious texts and it is through religion that those in this country deemed "marriage' worthwhile to society and we can also see that "marriage" implies having offspring. This is a Biblical notion as well.

Consummation ≠ childbearing. Your argument is all over the place.

Where are you coming fomr---consummation creates children....or do you think they come into the world by some other means?

That's not what your source says. Your source said that "marriage" comes from the Latin marītāre, and "matrimony" derives from the Latin mātrimōnium.

Which is derived from the word mother---hence, implied in marriage is to have offspring.

They're not exceptions to any rule. They're examples that demonstrate that the rule doesn't exist.

Nope, the fact that not all couples will have children is an exception to the rule.....unless you think children come by some other means that a man and a woman.

That's really not how statistics work. And it's all beside the point, because the government has no interest in whether a couple has children or not.

Actually---it very much is concerned with whether a couple has children or not. That is why stats are kept on such things. In fact, if a nation does not have children, then it better start immigrating people as their government will fail...that is a proven fact. So, marriage is the ins***ution in which a society best sees to protecting its future generations.

What? Children are harmed because they're not being placed in homes with stable, loving parents—because the Catholic Charities decided that discriminating against same-sex couples is more important than providing homes for children.

Because less children are being serviced by Catholic charities adoption services and hence, more children are being harmed rather than helped by gay marriage. What---is now your argument going to also state that those who provide services must be forced to give up their civil liberties on how they provide services?

Separate is (still) not equal.

Skin color and behavior are two different things. This argument is silly. If behavior could all be determined as equal, that opens a whole slippery slope of what behaviors should be considered equal.

But if you accept the premise (of the reality of the 1000+ rights and benefits denied to same-sex couples under federal law), why are you not working to make these "civil unions" happen?

I leave that up to those who want the rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly established that marriage is a civil right. The U.S. is also a signatory to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, which establishes that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family".

The U.S. Supreme Court, also in the case of polygamy, determined it had the right to define what marriage was.

You have "noted", but you have not established, that attractional orientation is a behavioral issue. Meanwhile, in reality, ****sexuality remains neither more nor less a behavioral issue than heterosexuality.

Yes, hetersexuality is also a behavior. Marriage is an ins***ution that defines how society looks on that behavior and the possible ramifications (offspring) and what would be best boundaries for that behavior.

You did nothing of the sort. You showed me that one of the English words for marriage ("matrimony") has Latin roots in a word for "mother". Not a word about religion was provided, as "proof" or otherwise.

I give you the Bible as my proof that marriage is a religous ins***ution first and foremost. Please provide an older document that states otherwise if you think you have proof that marriage is not a religious ins***ution first and foremost.

Consummation ≠ childbearing.

Yes, marriages have been annulled because of a couple's infertility. Are you arguing that that's a good thing?

The fact that a marriage can be annuled for infertility or is never consummated shows that marraige is more than just what happens at a wedding. Marriage is for the protection of offspring. That becomes obvious when you see how the law surrounding marriage has always worked. The fact that you would ask me if this is a "good" thing makes me realize that your views of marriage are not congruent with why the laws of have been created in the first place. This is not whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but merely to acknowledge that marriage is for the protection of offspring---and if there no possibility of offspring or consumation of the marriage; then society do not look at is as a "marriage" and thus they can get the marraige annulled rather than a divorce.

Correction: you imagine a huge difference in these relationships.

Do you know any same-sex couples?

Yes, many---and well. Their relationships are not the same.

That's...utterly inane. If you can tell the difference between men and women, you're not gay. I don't even know where to start.

I am saying that if I gay person can tell the difference between a man and a woman when choosing a partner, we also can see a difference. It is wrong on one hand for them to say--I am gay because I see a difference and prefer the difference and on the other hand ask us to not see the difference that are the very criteria for their choice.

It's a red herring, and I'm not biting.

It is not a red-herring. This issue has been brought up before...does the state have the right to determine what is a "marriage" based on what they think is best for society. In the case of polygamy--it was decided. Now, you want to argue that there are basic fundamental rights that all humans have regarding marriage. If gays or lesbians think they have this right, then why not polygamists? That is a very real and pertinent question. The state decided against the civil liberties before of adults choosing for themselves how to define marriage---why do you think they should not decide in the case of gay marriage, but should in the case of polygamists marriages?

[Libby]

And objective reality says that a relationship between two men or two women is not the same as the relationship between a man and a woman....that should be obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and a basic understanding of human anatomy.

I'm not going to get into a big debate about this, but I did want to make a couple of comments here.

People who are same sex attracted, actually, have exactly the same kinds of relationships that heteros do. They love someone, they commit to one another, they live their lives together and often even raise children together. No differences of any consequence, whatsoever. Not that I want to go into details, but they even enjoy sex in many of the same ways that heteros do. There is no observable differences in their relationships, as compared to heterosexual relationships, at all.

[Libby]

This is kind of a hot ****on issue for me (which is why I don't like discussing it with friends who differ, cause it makes me crazy!...) but, I have to say, the churches (not just LDS, but any who insert themselves in this issue) do so much harm, IMO.

****sexuality is not a sin, nor is it a "challenge", as so many like to try and present it. It is a natural way of being, put into nature, by God, himself, as a variation, an anomaly that God intended..and it is a test, not for the same sex attracted, but for those of us who are NOT. We have failed this test, to date, but I am hopeful that things are getting better (they ARE getting better) and we will someday all be enlightened on this topic, as most of us have become on race.