PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Most regulars know I am in a same-sex marriage (6 year anniversary this Sunday, though we have been together for 17). I am genuinely interested in this community's thoughts on the below article. If you are willing to make cogent comments on the 5 points in this article I am all ears. Please do not, however, leverage religious doctrine in your reply. That's an entirely separate conversation which I'd be happy to have another time.

Though I disagree with many here, I'm also coming to respect those who support their position with fair and civil language. Please try for this if you comment!


http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/07/a-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage

VladimirPee

My honest opinion and please take no offense. I do not believe in discriminating against gays however I do not believe it is normal behavior. I would like to see the reasons for homosexuality studied and discussed openly without the gay community trying to smear those who think differently.

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

Read it, thought about it, still didn't change my mind. Homosexuality is a mental problem that should be treated. The government has no right to make laws condoning it, and in fact, must pass laws that discourage it.

You must admit that, deep within your heart, you know that sodomy and felatio with another man is very wrong. Both felatio and sodomy are a hateful means of severely mentally degrading another male human being.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Trooper, I appreciate your straightforward (no pun intended) statement of your position. And I have to say that what I do in my bedroom is no one's business but mine. But I do know in the very deepest part of my heart and soul that I love my husband, and whatever acts convey that love can never be degrading or wrong. My position is unlikely to ever change, and probably not yours, but here we are...we still have to live together on the planet even when we disagree.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Thanks for your civil reply Dennis. It may not be normal for you, but it is for me. Homosexuality has been studied for aeons, and will likely be for a long time. I have no issue with that. But sometimes inherent in its study is a pre-conceived idea that it is wrong and must be changed. I disagree with that position. Same-sex relationships have been part of humanity since we started recording such things, and there's no indication it will ever go away.

VladimirPee

People have been born with many abnormalities since we began recording history from blindness to multiple limbs. Does that make it normal? Of course not and we are always looking for causes.

rjoeholl

If what you do in your bedroom is no ones business but yours, why are you flaunting it and posting it on the internet?

Caboose Loc: South Carolina

All you queers are an abomination. You live a nasty filthy perverted life style. You deserve what you get.

JMHO Loc: Utah

Ditto...I couldn't have said it better. :thumbup:

oldcrow

it is true what happens in you bed room is only you your mate and the lords business. As for marage that is clearly defined in the bible as one man and one woman. That said should you have same rites as straight people YES but not called marage just a civil union. I am ok with that.and I will pray for you.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Oldcrow - thanks for your civil response, although I did ask to steer away from religion and focus on the article. And despite being non-religious myself, I think prayer never hurts! We're all connected to each other spiritually whether we like it or not so I see your prayers, if made with good intentions, as a good thing. Just don't be disappointed when I stay gay. :)

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

[quote=PaulPisces]Most regulars know I am in a same-sex marriage (6 year anniversary this Sunday, though we have been together for 17). I am genuinely interested in this community's thoughts on the below article. If you are willing to make cogent comments on the 5 points in this article I am all ears. Please do not, however, leverage religious doctrine in your reply. That's an entirely separate conversation which I'd be happy to have another time.

Though I disagree with many here, I'm also coming to respect those who support their position with fair and civil language. Please try for this if you comment!

THIS IS MY RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE

I read this thread yesterday but decided that it would be best to think about it over night so that I could communicate in an organized fashion that, hopefully would not be misunderstood.

Diversity for its own sake has absolutely no value. Each of us must define diverse for himself (and I use the genderless "him" for this discussion) Do you want people of different cultures, colors and religions, or are you looking for diverse age groups, or socioeconomic groups? It has been my experience that the one thing "progressives" don't want is diversity of thought. If they did, they would not be so enthusiastic about "hate speech" laws because someone's feelings might be hurt.It would appear to me that the only group that one is allowed to criticize is the Christian group. So using diversity as a reason to endorse homosexual marriage is a non issue.

The libertarian argument for homosexual marriage, if it is as the author claims, outside of murder, don't worry it is OK

The request was that religion should not be brought into the discussion. Fine, so be it. No discussion of morals. Works for me within this discussion, although certainly not within MY life.

The claim that "same sex marriage promotes conservative values" then needs to be examined. The data for this section comes from Stanley Kurtz in The end of Marriage in Scandinavia" and "Slipping Toward Scandinavia" Once the government endorses the idea that marriage is just a legal contract, between between consenting adults of any gender, then marriage will no longer be seen as a prerequisite for children. Marriage then is seen as nothing more than a coupling. " Gay rights advocate Andrew Sullivan sees it that way now. He writes that "coupling-not procreation- is what civil marriage is. In that case more couples will decide there is no value to marriage, go through the bother of getting married just to have children. Why tie yourself to one person if you don't need to. Having five children by five different sires is the result of such an attitude. That is damaging to children because the coupling is seldom permanent and people in that kind of arrangement break up at a rate three to five times as high as married couples.There is no question that liberalized marriage laws change our attitudes about the necessity of a permanent relationship to raise children. Only 37 percent of people in countries with same sex marriage laws think they should marry if they want children, while 60 per cent of people in countries without same sex marriage laws think that marriage should be part of the equation.
Furthermore, homosexual activists are fighting to change marriage laws because they know there is a causal between law and behavior. Activists like Sullivan and Signorile have admitted they don;t want to change the law so that they can get married, but because they know that a change in the law will change the attitudes about marriage and homosexuality for all of society, as it is an attempt to validate homosexual behavior by marriage even though in Norway where same sex marriage has been legal for twenty years only about two percent of eligible homosexuals have married.
Blankenthorn and Kurtz, who are both researchers in the subject say "one can believe in same sex marriage . One can believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. One cannot believe both"
Most people believe that promiscuity is bad for the body and corrosive toward the soul. If they are right about that, them allowing homosexual couples to enter lifetime monogamy ought to be desirable"
If the love between homosexuals is spousal in nature, as the advocates of same sex marriage claim, we would then expect it to be as exclusive as heterosexual marriage. But if the primary interest is sexual, then the other person is replaceable. Lets compare the two the spousal and the promiscuous. Researcher Dr. Diggs writes that "the most extensive survey of sex in America found that a vast majority of heterosexual married couples are faithful while the marriage is intact. The survey further found that 94 percent of married people and 75percent of co habiting people (both groups heterosexual) had only one partner in the previous year. Dr. Satinover, who extensively researched homosexual behavior, cites a study done by two homosexual men found that of the 156 homosexual pairs only seven had maintained sexual fidelity for one year or more., and that of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, non had maintained sexual fidelity. So much for fostering virtue.

The discussion of homosexual couples being good for the children, ther is muc debate. Most activists will not admit that there are differences between men and women particularly in their approach to child raising. the biological differences in both sexes mandate the differences. Two men or two women are not as good as one of each for raising sound stable children who understand the emotional needs of both sexes. There was a man on OPP whose name was Rod riddle. He and his "husband" adopted two boys who were unrelated to either adult or to each other. When the boys were around fifteen eacn announced that they were homosexual just like their parents. I still think that is rather odd, that two homosexual men would adopt two children and that each would be part of the two or three percent of men who are homosexual. What are the odds of that?

Some months ago I had a thread Brian has three daddies with information on the medical and abuse risks of homosexual adoption that were very very different from the "children are better raised by two same sex people than being raised by their biological parents. I will go back and find it today and put it up in case nany one is interested.

I hope I made sense with this post and that those who read it and wish to respond will do so in the same civil tone as it was presented. Thank you.

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

[quote=no propaganda please]

Good research, .... good discussion, ... thanks for a good read. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

ghostgotcha Loc: The Florida swamps

Indeed... No wonder you deny God...

ghostgotcha Loc: The Florida swamps

Love in the ewe of the beholder?