The gays have it. (Virginia, medical, kids, best)

[Dedalus]

I think that there are people who are flat out hetero, or gay, and nothings going to influence them.

I think there might be some other people who are bi, and what they do, and how they view themselves, depends a lot on who they know, and where they are.

Such a person might, growing up in Topeka, KS, be an ardent churchgoer, be married all their life, and never admit to anyone their "dirty, sinful" impulses. The same person, born in San Fran, might self identify as gay.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Colomonter

The issue concerning sexual orientation seems to come down to whether one has a "choice" or not. This seems to be the crux of the problem regarding every debate on this issue.

That may be, but I might suggest that the 'choice' question is typically introduced by those who are interested in using it as a crowbar to pry the train quite off the tracks of unbiased debate and more toward the pre-ordained, religiously-based conclusions that they prefer.

At its core, the question of choice should have no bearing. Just as one does not spend much time wondering, 'Gee, should I be gay or straight?', one does not spend much time wondering whether to be liberal or conservative. One confronts what seems to be one's own essence in such matters and then proceeds to act accordingly. But whether or not one 'chooses' to be liberal would not be at all germane to a proposition that liberals should not be allowed to vote. That proposition would simply fail of its own accord. Unless and until, that is, the religious were able to find some passage in divine scripture which could be interpreted as God's call to keep the left-leaning out of polling places. Then you would see the same sort of debate over liberal-voting as you now see over gay-marriage.

The bottom line as I see it here is that the religious objectors to gay-marriage actually have no basis for their proposition beyond a defense of the peculiar doctrines of their personal religions. As such, they attempt to steer debate off into meaningless marshes and backwaters in an attempt to stave off an otherwise inevitable progression toward discovery of that fact. They have no more meaningful arguments for preventing gay-marriage than they do for preventing liberal-voting, but they would really rather that you didn't ever come to a realization of that fact...

[zonababe]

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)

The reason some posters can only give a religious response, is due to their inability to think outside "The Bible". Then we have two Christian camps who argue amongst themselves regarding who is the "true Christian". These two parties call themselves "Christian", yet they can't get along with each other. The topic is usually shot to hell as we are left with nothing but, thump, thump, thump. Next topic, next chapter and verse.

[Kereczr]

Originally Posted by nhyrnut

You list study after study in support but this is like all other topics I can find just as many studies that state to the contrary. It is a matter of what 1 believes. If you lean one way you will use the studies in your favor. The only thing one can do is look at the studies on both sides and make -up there own mind. openly admitted I for 1 think they should not be allowed to raise children. Not due to them not being capable. But due to society in general not being ready for this.You can say it wont have an effect all you want but fact is Kids are kids on the playground. If you think for 1 min the child of gay parents wont get humiliated than you should not have kids anyway. Emotional scares are harder to fix. And even once grown up they still lie in slumber til they snap.

You think the APA is an unreliable source? I will take their studies over your opinion...k thanks

[DocGSD]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

I may not be a doctor, but I'm still capable of understanding this simple concept... if somebody is born with a certain trait, it doesn't always present AT BIRTH. Are concert pianists born playing the piano? No, but they still have that innate talent, which will show itself when the factor (piano) is introduced. I'm a professional violist, and when I started playing at age 8, it just clicked - I hardly ever practice, yet I sit ahead (in orchestra ranks) of others who practice 2-3 hours a day. But meanwhile, I could study calculus 24/7, and still wouldn't ever be a "natural". Do you see my point?? Since I haven't gone to medical school for 8 years, I'm forced to use lame-man terms...

Yes Giz, I understand your point. As far as being born with a trait and it not showing until later in life, YES, I agree. I do not support, believe that homosexuality is a "trait". There are different studies to show that it is and that it is not. I guess its left up to the individual to decide on their own.
I am also not saying that everyone is going to turn gay and the world will end because of a lack of reproduction. We can sit here and argue all day long about this. It boils down to whatever study / opinion you want to believe.

[DocGSD]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

Ummm... they might not be able to reproduce with each other, but they're still perfectly capable. I have friends who are a lesbian couple, and just had a beautiful baby girl through artificial insemination. As long as both genders still exist in the world, babies are always a possibility - so don't worry about extinction if everyone suddenly turns gay.

And that is not a "natural" birth. That is my point, and only that. People keep twisting what I say.

[DocGSD]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?[/quote]

blaaa blaaa blaaaa, ever make a type-o? You must be too cool to make an error.

[DocGSD]

[quote=mmouwse;588523

Sir or Madam:
Who asked you? Did I or other gays ask you for your opinion? What arrogance you have to think that you have the right to minister your religion and your beliefs to me. You and your kind maintain that there is a gay agenda and that we are trying to force change and "our ways" on you. Please, think about what you said that I quoted here and ask yourself who is forcing themselves upon who?[/QUOTE]


I dont believe I said anything about being forced upon me or "my kind".

[DocGSD]

[quote=ShadowXOR;588517]That is bull****. It is not something you choose QUOTE]
When you get an educated opinion, please share it.

[DocGSD]

Originally Posted by mmouwse

Where does your Bible say that you are given the right to judge as God?

Dont believe you will find me being a judge.