The gays have it. (education, gay population, doctor, million)

[DocGSD]

Originally Posted by saganista

In what way are gays a poor example to children? Gays live the same array of lifestyles as straights. Some are admirable and fine examples to anyone. Others are not.


You can't have it both ways. Either you are indeed saying that marriage is only for those who wish to reproduce (which of course includes many gays and excludes many straights), or you contradict yourself in then stating that opposition to gay marriage comes down to lack of contribution in a reproductive way.

There isnt two points in that. The point is that gay people CAN NOT reproduce. So whats going to happen to the human population when everyone turns that way? Research shows that there are 12% more gays in 05 then in 00. If a person wants to be gay, then that is their choice. I will not belittle them. I will only caution them of their choices in the after life that I belive in and support. I voice this because it is my duty as a christian to minister to them.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Marks

Nonsense. I have and do study my faith's history, and believe me it's very stable. Faith in God has been around since day one. So I think I'm in great hands.

How stable has it been with respect to the amasssing of personal wealth? The role of the priesthood? Slavery? The role and rights of women? Hereditary rule? Dietary laws? Genocide? Capital punishment? Scientific discovery? If I start going through some of those areas and others, I begin to be struck by the sense in a proposition that this religion at least behaves as any business does, constantly adapting and changing to meet the emerging needs and demands of its customers...

[PrettyHateMachine]

Originally Posted by JerZ

Isn't it weird how most posts end up being about religion here, even if they started out as something else? This topic started being about gays and corporations.

It ALWAYS seems to come around to religion. It would be lovely not to argue about religion but that seems impossible. I think someone could post "Plaid or Polka Dots: Which is Better?" and it would end up being about religion.

Discuss. (/waving hands around)

C'mon Jerz!

We all know that plaid originated from Lucifer's wardrobe. It is a pagan cross-hatched pattern and should be regarded as such.

And the accordian is his musical instrument.

However, the origins of the infernal polka dots are not so holy either, but that's for another thread

[Kereczr]

Originally Posted by spunky1

How are homosexuals "second class citizens". They have all rights all other citizens have.

90% of the same rights isn't equal or fair. They can not get married, many states are trying to ban homosexual adoption, many states have no laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination, etc.

[Kereczr]

Originally Posted by Marks

Nonsense. I have and do study my faith's history, and believe me it's very stable. Faith in God has been around since day one. So I think I'm in great hands.

That is utter bs, I am sorry, im not gonna get into a history lesson, but if you honestly claim that you've studied your religions origins and history and then go on to say it has always been stable and remained the same the only conclusion I can draw is that you are lying.

[Kereczr]

let me now
address the objection that children aren’t as well adjusted in homosexual
households. People who argue against homosexual marriage in part due to
their assumption that homosexuals will raise damaged children, or their
children will end up homosexual, are mistaken. The American
Psychological Association, among many other respected organizations, have done
studies on the issue and concluded that there are no noticeable
differences between children from homosexual homes and children from homosexual
homes. The APA has issued a statement on their website stating: “Studies
comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual
parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of
children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological
adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also
important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or
her children's.” This brings me to my next point that homosexual
parents will cause their children to become more likely to be homosexual. If
we completely ignore the scientific evidence which, for the most part,
states that homosexuality has at least some origin biologically, then
this may be a valid argument, if it where true. However this is not the
case, as is stated in the above quotation. One recent statistic I saw
on the matter claims to show that homosexual tendency in heterosexual
homes is above half as that of children raised in homosexual homes, being
about five percent in heterosexual homes and about ten to twelve
percent in homosexual homes. Even if this were the case there could be a very
simply explanation for this. The homosexual population is estimated by
various groups to be at about ten percent. So this would explain the
difference in the number of children who profess to begin gay from
heterosexual homes as compared to homosexual homes. Given the stigmatization
that children from heterosexual homes may feel by coming out to their
parents isn’t it obvious that the numbers for their coming out would be
lower? Of course the numbers would be higher for children coming out to
their parents in homosexual household because they would feel more
comfortable doings so. And with the percent of homosexuals raised in
same-sex households being at about ten to twelve percent this puts it right
at the estimated percentage for the number of people who are homosexual.
So this too is not a valid objection to same-sex marriage.[/quote]

Im not even going to justify a responce to this.[/quote]

Because you don't have one and....because you can't even spell "response" correctly?

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Gsd353

There isnt two points in that. The point is that gay people CAN NOT reproduce.

Gay women can and do reproduce as efficiently as straight women. There are no known cases of a man of any sexual orientation giving birth.

Originally Posted by Gsd353

So whats going to happen to the human population when everyone turns that way?

Is there an actual discussion of the proposition that everyone should become gay? I hadn't heard that. I was supposing that the issue was whether those who are gay should be able to marry on the same terms as those who are not.

Originally Posted by Gsd353

Research shows that there are 12% more gays in 05 then in 00.

Do you think that means that there are more gays now, or that the gays that have always been around are more willing to report that, yes, they are gay?

Originally Posted by Gsd353

If a person wants to be gay, then that is their choice.

And should I assume that the same holds for straights? It was a matter of personal choice for them as well? Or were they hard-wired into their straightness and thus unable to make any other choice, even if it were a superior one?

Originally Posted by Gsd353

I will not belittle them. I will only caution them of their choices in the after life that I belive in and support. I voice this because it is my duty as a christian to minister to them.

It is not my expectation that your support for it will have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of an afterlife. I would otherwise commend your devotion to duty, but might inquire as to the process by which the specifics of that duty were derived and defined. In at least some sense, those seem to presume a right of veto over freely given protestations and refusals on the part of the one being ministered to. In many schools of thought, such claims for veto power are thought to be violations of interpersonal ethics...

[Kereczr]

Originally Posted by Gsd353

You are not born that way. It's a learned behavior, trait, feeling or whatever. Go to medical school for 8 years and then you can tell me about how you "feel" when you are born. Human minds dont process sexual orientation for years.

hahahah, wow you really know a whole lot of nothing don't yah?

Let me now begin to address some objections of same-sex marriage and homosexuality. First I would like to address one of the most basic and common objections. That being that homosexuality is a choice. And with adequate love and treatment one can change their sexual preferences. I’ve heard many a time from all manner of people that homosexuality is a choice. That it is something that someone can freely choose to be or not to be. These same people point to what they believe are successful examples of conversion therapy to further illustrate their point that homosexuality is a choice. First I would like to tell these people that for homosexuality to be a choice almost defies logic. Why would anyone choose to be something which will consistently, and constantly make their lives harder for them in all spheres of life? Second I would like to say that no concrete scientific evidence supports the notion that homosexuality is a choice or mental disorder. Indeed in a large way we still do not fully understand all the mechanisms that determine a persons sexuality. And for every obscure study that a person can point to that attempts to show homosexuality is a choice, I can point to many more that says it is not. Like I said, we really have no definitive answer to what is the cause of sexual orientation. However we do have enough proof that many powerful, old, and respected organizations have come out against the notion that homosexuality is a choice and that there is anything wrong with it. For instance the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, etc have all come out with statements denying that homosexuality is a disease, that sexual orientation can be changed or that it needs to be changed. So what of “successful” examples of conversion therapy? Doesn’t this offer proof that homosexuality can be treated? Well no, not really because conversion therapy is anything but successful, in fact it is more often harmful to the persons seeking it. For instance in an article published in “Professional Psychology Research and Practice” it was found that only four percent of those who sought conversion therapy considered themselves successful with seventy-four percent experiencing “significant long-term (psychological) damage from the conversion therapy”. So when it comes to the argument that homosexuality is a choice and can therefore be treated, there is no proof to support this.

[Marks]

Originally Posted by saganista

How stable has it been with respect to the amasssing of personal wealth?

You are looking at what most people see--those folks that have sought an opportunity to capitalize on the innocent. You don't see the real Christians as many fail to do.

The role of the priesthood? Slavery? The role and rights of women? Hereditary rule? Dietary laws? Genocide? Capital punishment? Scientific discovery?

What about it? Protestant Christians don't have a "priesthood" as in the Roman Catholic's. And as far as, "Slavery? The role and rights of women? Hereditary rule? Dietary laws? Genocide? Capital punishment? Scientific discovery?" What about it? Don't tell me your going down that "let's blame all the Christians" road are you?

[Kereczr]

Originally Posted by Gsd353

There isnt two points in that. The point is that gay people CAN NOT reproduce. So whats going to happen to the human population when everyone turns that way? Research shows that there are12% more gays in 05 then in 00. If a person wants to be gay, then that is their choice. I will not belittle them. I will only caution them of their choicesin the after life that I belive in and support. I voice this because it is my duty as a christian to minister to them.

Another typical argument against same-sex marriage and one that is frequently heard is that marriage is in a large way for procreation. Marriage, to some, is believed to be, in part, a contract that will eventually lead to children to continue the population of the given civilization. So if homosexuals cannot produce children and cannot continue the population then why should their marriage be allowed? Why give benefits to gay couples who cannot give something back to society from their marriage? This argument is flawed
for a number of reasons. First, if we were to assume that all marriage is for the end result of procreation then should it not be written into law to say as much? If having children is a prerequisite for marriage should it not also be made so that it is forced on straight couples as well? If this were true all marriage would require children and if children could not be produced then the marriage would be invalidated. I don’t believe that anyone would really find this acceptable. Also this assumes that same-sex couples cannot or do not want children. Many same-sex couples would happily adopt a child whom would otherwise have no home. Also many have children from unhappy past marriages in which they hadn’t fully come to terms with what they are. And still more would love to produce a child through such means as surrogate mothers. Many people respond to this by raising the objection that children who are not raised in a two-parent heterosexual home face life long psychological damage and will not be as able to adjust to society. I will address the objection in my next section, but for now I believe it is clear that when one says that marriage is for the end result of children, the inclinations of such an argument haven’t been fully thought out on their part.

As for the 12% more gays, links? Making things up is easy eh?