Smo⋅ker⋅phobe (n.)

smokerphobeSmo⋅ker⋅phobe (n.)

Smokers worldwide have had their alternative lifestyles repeatedly maligned by news media, government agencies, and stubbornly persistent facts.  These hateful smokerphobes have gone too far.  Rather than promoting tolerance and diversity, schools are being used to discourage the use of tobacco through scare tactics.

The following is an example of the kinds of truths flagrantly taught in schools and by multiple government agencies:

  • Chemicals in tobacco cause damage to the macula (the most sensitive part of the retina, the back of the eye).
  • Smoking is a risk factor for all cancers associated with the larynx, oral cavity and esophagus.
  • Heavy smokers have laryngeal cancer mortality risks 20 to 30 times greater than non-smokers.
  • Nicotine causes blood vessels to constrict which causes the blood pressure rise and strain is put on the heart.
  • The carbon monoxide in cigarettes depletes the oxygen carrying capacity of a smoker’s blood so that the heart has to pump harder to get enough oxygen to the rest of the body.
  • Smoking increases blood cholesterol and fibrinogen levels which cause the blood to clot more easily and this will increase the risk of having a heart attack, caused by a blood clot forming in the heart.
  • The tar content of cigarette smoke damages the cells in the airways of the lung, making the cilia unable to sweep away the harmful substances.
  • Harmful substances from the smoke are detected by the protective cells of the body and these cells move to the lung and try to defend it, but are destroyed by the cigarette smoke. The dead cells release substances that damage the structure of the lung, which leads to chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
  • Tobacco accounts for more than 80% of the lung cancer cases.
  • The overall relative risk of stroke in smokers being about 1.5times that of non-smokers
  • Smoking has been shown to contribute to such common disorders as heartburn and peptic ulcers. It also increases the risk of Crohn’s disease and possibly gallstones.
  • Nearly 50% of the bladder and kidney cancer in men are caused by smoking.
  • Approximately 30% of all deaths from pancreatic cancer are attributable to cigarette smoking.
  • Smokers get more and deeper wrinkles all over their faces because nicotine constricts the tiny capillaries that nourish the skin.
  • Men who smoke are twice as likely to become bald as are men who do not smoke, and premature graying is 3 to 6 times more common in smokers.
  • Smoking delays the healing of fractures, and in some smokers bone healing is indefinitely delayed.
  • Smokers are at a much higher risk of developing osteoporosis.
  • Smokers also have poorer muscle strength, agility and balance.

Source: http://mens-health.health-cares.net/smoking-harms.php

Multiple supposedly “neutral” and “scientific” sources are cited.  The biased and hateful authors of these sources and the people who teach these things apparently do not consider the feelings of people who smoke before discouraging our younger generation from following in their footsteps.

It’s Smokerphobia and it’s got to stop! Smokers are people too!

To add insult to injury, many offer stop smoking programs as if they had the right to tell people who smoke that their lifestyle choice was less than their own.

“Certain Gene Found to Influence Why People Start Smoking and Why Some Get Addicted and Others Don’t”  —APA

Few people recognize that smokers are “born that way” and there is scientific proof for the genetic propensity for smoking.  Information published by the APA about the genetic links to smoking are consistently ignored.

Source: http://www.apa.org/releases/smoke99.html

Ok Ok Ok……  So at what point do we draw the line?

There is obviously a huge difference between educating people about the very real consequences of smoking and hating smokers.  Hopefully we can all see that being an educator that teaches that there are consequences to smoking does not automatically make that person a “smokerphobe” who hates smokers and wants to prevent them from enjoying the freedom to smoke.

There are very real consequences to homosexual behavior.  Educating about those consequences is not the mark of a bigot, a hater, or even a homophobe.

Advertisements

139 Comments

  1. { Lisa } said,

    January 10, 2009 at 10:17 pm

    OH MY…THIS IS GOOD!

  2. Euripides said,

    January 10, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    Good stuff BB. The analogy is appropriate, but I doubt homosexual activists will see it that way. Alas, all we can hope for is that common sense and sanity will come around again in the world.

  3. January 10, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    People who are attracted to smoking should seek some help. Perhaps they can be cured of this disorder. It is unfortunate that some people put these desires into action and start actually smoking. As the evidence suggests, smoking is bad for your health.

    I could put this another way.

    People who have a same sex attraction should seek some help. Perhaps they can be cured of this disorder. It is unfortunate that some people put these desires into action and take part in homosexual sex. As the evidence suggests, homosexual sex is bad for your health.

  4. beetlebabee said,

    January 10, 2009 at 11:45 pm

    It’s always fun taking bare connotations and socially acceptable foibles and swapping things around to see how it looks from a new view…

  5. Liberty Belle said,

    January 11, 2009 at 12:04 am

    Yeah, but you just made that word up! Smokerphobes, there’s no such thing as a smokerphobe!

    https://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/ho⋅mo⋅phobe-n

    haha, oh yeah, homophobe was made up too.

  6. busywithconviction said,

    January 11, 2009 at 1:18 am

    Beetle very good. I made a similar point in one of my threads a couple of months ago. Those who I had been going back and forth with at the time never came back with anything. I will be curious to see if you get any pro-gay rights arguing their point on this post.

    Liberty Belle you make me laugh. Literally out load. Laughter is good for us. So thanks!

  7. Pearl said,

    January 11, 2009 at 1:54 am

    Beetle’s brilliance strikes again! Thanks for a great laugh. I appreciate the time you must have spent compiling that awesome list. I was talking with a friend of mine recently, mother of three homosexuals, and she made the interesting point that no matter how many homosexuals we know and no matter how much we show them we love them, if we just plain disagree with the lifestyle they’ve chosen to pursue, they erroneously think we’re homophobes and return love with hate.

    I loved your previous post about homophobes; the one Liberty Belle linked to in this thread. Phobias are fears. The only fear I have for (not of) homosexuals lies in my concern for their self-destruction. Our society shouldn’t be facilitating and embracing their behavior; we should be treating and curing it.

  8. Liberty Belle said,

    January 11, 2009 at 3:41 am

    Busywithconviction, the whole idea that the APA deals in science is just a laugh. On the one side they claim that smoking has genetic ties, and also possibly same-gender attraction, but what they do with that information is so unscientific, it’s the epitome of sticking your finger in the wind or taking a public opinion poll.

  9. Steven S. said,

    January 11, 2009 at 3:50 am

    Pearl, Wow, mother of three homosexuals…I don’t think I’ve heard of instances of homosexuality being that high in a family. Unless it truly is genetic, but I guess the studies done on twins disproves that. We’re all given some sort of trial in our lives aren’t we? I’ll pick the devil I know over the one I don’t any day.

    Secular Heretic, even if they can’t be “cured”, I know of people with SSA who live celibate lives, consistent with their beliefs. Acting out is a conscious choice, even if the original orientation wasn’t consciously chosen. How discouraging to be told there is nothing to be done about it, that it’s inherent, you’re born with it. That theology was born out of frustration no doubt.

  10. goldnsilver said,

    January 11, 2009 at 6:21 am

    I would like you to list the ‘very real consequences of homosexual behaviour’ before I comment further on this entry.

  11. January 11, 2009 at 7:39 am

    Very clever beetle, as usual! I love it!!! You’re right on. People need to wake up and see that we won’t be tolerating the very tight leash that homosexuals are trying to keep us on. We have a right to our opinion and to educate the masses, and they can’t stop us.

  12. beetlebabee said,

    January 11, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    goldnsilver,

    I’m afraid I don’t have time at the moment to go through such a litany, but you are free to browse through the archives:

    https://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/beetle-archives/

    as those arguments have been made multiple times previously. In the meantime, perhaps you can compile a list of reasons to promote homosexual behavior and we can go from there.

    What are the real benefits as you see them?

  13. goldnsilver said,

    January 12, 2009 at 3:45 am

    Thank you for the link, I’ll have to research your posts and the supposed consequences and get back to this to offer an opinion.

    What are the real benefits as you see them?

    I don’t see there being ‘benefits’ to a homosexual lifestyle, but neither do I see a benefit to heterosexual life either. These are peoples’ lifes we are talking about, not a health insurance plan.

  14. { Lisa } said,

    January 12, 2009 at 8:03 am

    goldnsilver,

    You see no benefit to your mother and fathers life? if thats so then I feel very sad….

  15. beetlebabee said,

    January 12, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    Isn’t the crux of what we’re talking about here the difference in promoting two world views? In reading your comments in various posts today, it seems that you’ve framed the argument such that my personal world view is at odds with the world, but I think the argument can be much simpler than that. Religious, moral people believe that there are laws set forth by God, or some higher power, call it what you will. Others believe that you set your own creed, or that morality is determined by man or society. This country was built on the idea that moral laws are universal truths set forth in Judeo/Christian beliefs of the founding fathers. I say Judeo/Christian, but many other world faiths share common values. I believe that religious people of many faiths can coexist just fine with a good measure of tolerance to buffer against the small differences in theology because at the root they are all basically moving in the same direction, under the same principles.

    Laws are based on that belief, society is based on that belief, else why condemn murder or any other thing traditionally held as immoral? If it is all based on mere societal whim, we could see a day where murder was just fine. I have a problem with that, and with the world view that puts forth inherently destructive elements of human nature as the ideal to be reverenced. Self before society.

    Those two particular world views cannot coexist. Eventually one will replace the other. One of the most vulnerable places for society is our schools where the next generation is imbued with ideas of right and wrong. Ideas that branch off from the notion that there is no morality are not healthy, homosexuality is one of those practices that depends on flexible morality to be accepted.

    Homosexuality (speaking of the practice, not the people) can only exist as a culture where there is a healthy society around it to hold it up. It is inherently destructive, as is the world view that promotes it.

  16. January 12, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    Hi goldnsilver

    Here are some real consequences for taking part in homosexual behavior.

    Remafedi says, “Studies of human sexuality have noted high rates of suicidality among homosexual youth, but the problem has not been systematically examined.”

    Sandfort says, “The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.”

    Benefits of heterosexual life, marriage and family in particular.

    New research has found that children have fewer problems at school and home when they live with both biological parents (family).

  17. goldnsilver said,

    January 12, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    You see no benefit to your mother and fathers life? if thats so then I feel very sad….

    Don’t make ridiculous assumptions. Read my statement more clearly.

    beetleabee, when you write that long monologue to justify your hatred of homosexuals, I ask you this? What is the main ideal of Christianity? The answer is love for humanity, acceptance and leaving judgement to God. You bother worrying about the risk that homosexuality will bring morals to a standstill, yet I’ve read so much moral and judgemental dialogue here that I’m astounded by the lack of compassion. To me hatred and pride are far more worrying risks to society.

    Remafedi says, “Studies of human sexuality have noted high rates of suicidality among homosexual youth, but the problem has not been systematically examined.”

    Sandfort says, “The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.”

    I’m astounded that you would quote this and wonder why homosexuals have higher suicide rates and mental disorders. I’ll give you a clue; it’s not because they engage in sexual conduct with people of the same gender. It’s because people like this group constantly hate and judge them. It’s because they are treat like they are worthless to society.

    So don’t quote what you’ve caused to prove that there is something wrong with them.

  18. January 12, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    goldnsilver, we are supposed to make judgments as to what is good or bad. We don’t judge individual people but we do judge actions. Homosexual sex is bad, it’s a judgment on the actions. Another example, is adults having sex with children good or bad? Now you pass a judgment.

    With regard to the Remafedi and Sandfot studies. Bullying people with a same sex attraction probably does impact to an extent on the way they feel about themselves which leads to suicide etc. A study done in the Netherlands found a lot of mental illness in homosexual people even though it is a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all other countries.
    Another good comparison country is New Zealand, which is much more tolerant of homosexuality than is the United States. Legislation giving the movement special legal rights is powerful, consistently enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Despite this broad level of social tolerance, suicide attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the U.S.

  19. beetlebabee said,

    January 12, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    The same thing was found in the Netherlands, even with homosexual relationships given full rights and consideration, the suicidal violence in those groups, including pedophilia, remained out of step with the rest of society. It doesn’t seem to be related to social stigma.

    GoldnSilver, your assertion that I hate homosexuals illustrates exactly the point of this post. Can we talk about the facts of homosexuality without jumping to conclusions of hate? Hate has nothing to do with the merits of homosexuality.

  20. { Lisa } said,

    January 12, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    “but neither do I see a benefit to heterosexual life either.”

    Did I read this wrong? I didnt make an assumption at all. You are clearly intolerant of any opinion other than your own. And though noone on this post has been hateful or rude in any way, your posts drip with it.

  21. James R. said,

    January 12, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    So don’t quote what you’ve caused to prove that there is something wrong with them.

    Just playing devil’s advocate with you, if there were something wrong with homosexuality, how would that information possibly be transmitted and received?

    If I were to manufacture the perfect defense for a flawed position, it would be to couch that defense in rhetoric that labels all criticism as “hate”, whether factual or not. This tactic is especially effective against a group of people who eschews such mad passions as hate.

  22. James R. said,

    January 12, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    I might add that this is exactly the position advocated in the gay agenda published back in the 70’s. “After the Ball” by two excellent psychological warfare guys on how to get America to accept homosexuality in ten years. The book is brilliant.

  23. goldnsilver said,

    January 12, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    goldnsilver, we are supposed to make judgments as to what is good or bad. We don’t judge individual people but we do judge actions. Homosexual sex is bad, it’s a judgment on the actions. Another example, is adults having sex with children good or bad? Now you pass a judgment.

    Actually, you are not supposed to judge at all. Judgement is God’s right alone according to the Christian doctrine.

    Judging the actions of an individual is the same as judging the individual. What makes an individual more so than their actions? Don’t try to play with words; its all the same. Saying ‘I don’t hate you, but I hate the homosexual in you’, is not going to make a gay person feel less judged, considering sexuality is an integral part of a person’s self worth.

    Another example, is adults having sex with children good or bad? Now you pass a judgment.

    The main issue with paedophilia is that an adult takes sexual advantage of a child in a predatory and manipulative manor. Homosexuality is between two willing, adult partners. The two are not similar in any way, shape or form – I wish that people would stop trying to use the paedophilia as some kind of weak comparison.

    And yes I can pass a judgement. I’m not a Christian; I never self righteously proposed my own morality based on the teaching of Jesus and then in the same breath flout his main messages. However, I try not to judge as hard as I can.

    With regard to the Remafedi and Sandfot studies. Bullying people with a same sex attraction probably does impact to an extent on the way they feel about themselves which leads to suicide etc. A study done in the Netherlands found a lot of mental illness in homosexual people even though it is a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all other countries.
    Another good comparison country is New Zealand, which is much more tolerant of homosexuality than is the United States. Legislation giving the movement special legal rights is powerful, consistently enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Despite this broad level of social tolerance, suicide attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the U.S.

    Legislating equal rights for homosexuals will not immediatly cure all problems in the community. It will help though.

    Even if equal rights are legislated, acceptance is still not prevailing on a social level – this is the reason for the ongoing depression amongst the community. Homosexuals are still afraid to ‘come out’ for fear of judgement and hatred. I’ve stood outside of gay bars with my sister as car loads of people drive past screaming the most horrible obscenities (I live in Australia, a supposed non discriminatory country).

    Can we talk about the facts of homosexuality without jumping to conclusions of hate?

    I could if your opinions were actually based on fact, rather than thinly disguised prejudice. The majority of citations you use are easily dismissed – they are either based on small studies or are inconclusive see the above example supplied by Secular Heretic). Your religious reasons for being against homosexuality are based on judgement in a religion that tries emphatically to restrict judgement.

    What other conclusion can I draw about you?

  24. WaltzInExile said,

    January 12, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    Regarding the Sandfort study, you might want to take into account the researcher’s own words (from an email in which he states his work is being incorrectly used):

    There is a difference between the U.S. and the Netherlands in terms of acceptance of homosexuality. That does not mean that there is no homophobia (and homophobic damage) in the Netherlands. It is not clear how difference in climate affects the prevalence of mental disorders. We don’t know the final answers, but in the U.S. as well as the Netherlands, homophobia is related to mental health problems.

    He also said that Griggs and others who use the study to claim that homophobia does not have an effect on negative lgbt behavior are clearly distorting his work: “They use data to promote their moral convictions without truly understanding what the issues are. They are not interested in understanding how people’s lives are affected by their social environment.”

  25. beetlebabee said,

    January 12, 2009 at 8:15 pm

    Waltz, (nice to see you again!)

    Sandfort’s interpretation of the data is just as subjective as any other psychological researcher. The Sandfort research is important because of the large sample size, (7,000) participants. Their data backs up and supports two earlier studies that came to the same conclusions: Herrell 1999 & Fergusson 1999.

    The authors of the Sandfort study suggest a number of possible reasons for the difference in mental-health status. They suggest loneliness, difficulty in finding and keeping longterm partners due to the lesser stability of gay relationships, different social norms of the gay world (i.e., the acceptance of promiscuity), and the stress of social stigma–although the latter is, the authors admit, considerably less of a factor in The Netherlands (from which they drew the study population) and where gay marriage and relationships are widely accepted and have been for a long period of time…far more so than in other Western countries.

    Bias can be had in many places, from many researchers, but the data doesn’t lie. That the results are replicated in two other studies is significant, and the fact that Sandfort is still trying to pin the data on social stigma, even in a country as open as the Netherlands is telling.

  26. WaltzInExile said,

    January 12, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    James,

    “After the Ball” was written by Michael Kirk and Hunter Madsen in 1989, not the 1970s. You’re right, though, that it is brilliant; “After the Ball” simply suggests that mainstream PR tactics be used to promote gay rights.

  27. beetlebabee said,

    January 12, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    My personal religious beliefs are completely unknown to you, however, that hasn’t stopped you from trying to malign them. I find that interesting from someone who says they try to restrict judgment of others. If you want to talk facts, then let’s talk facts, without the religion bashing. If you want to talk world philosophy, let’s talk world views cleanly without dragging your interpretations of Christianity into it.

  28. goldnsilver said,

    January 12, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    “but neither do I see a benefit to heterosexual life either.”

    Did I read this wrong? I didnt make an assumption at all. You are clearly intolerant of any opinion other than your own. And though noone on this post has been hateful or rude in any way, your posts drip with it.

    You assumed that because I don’t see any concrete evidence of benefit towards the heterosexual lifestyle that I must see no benefit to my mother and father’s lifestyle and relationship. My point is this: my parents lifestyle is wonderful and I am truly proud on them. But this is based on their respectable character and honorable choices – not because they happen to have sex with someone of the opposite gender. Their benefit is in their character, not their sexual preference.

    My replies sometimes drip with rudeness because I get frustrated when people don’t read between the lines. However, I will agree that everyone here has been lovely, despite the controversial and personal nature of the topic. If I have come across as overtly rude, I apologise.

    Just playing devil’s advocate with you, if there were something wrong with homosexuality, how would that information possibly be transmitted and received?

    This is a very interesting question.

    In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with homsexuality. It is just a preference. I couldn’t think of there actually being something that proves its wrongness.

    To answer the question though: If the information was presented in a scientific fashion and produced from study that was in depth, free from bias and conclusive, then this would be a somewhat stable step to discussing the possible error of homosexual ways.

    However, I don’t think this is possible. Most points against homosexuals are based on opinions and religious moralisation – which after all are not absolute.

  29. beetlebabee said,

    January 12, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    James R.,

    I think the nature of social science being anything but a hard science adds to the difficulty here of trying to find hard evidence, however, statistical trends are as close as can be expected from this soft science.

  30. goldnsilver said,

    January 12, 2009 at 8:25 pm

    My personal religious beliefs are completely unknown to you, however, that hasn’t stopped you from trying to malign them. I find that interesting from someone who says they try to restrict judgment of others.

    The particulars of your denomination are not known to me, but I’ve read enough on this site to know that a great deal of the reasoning is based on Christian ‘morality’.

    I said I try to restrict my judgemental qualities, I didn’t say I succeed all the time ;) But I will try from now on to talk about this cleanly.

    If you want to talk facts, then let’s talk facts, without the religion bashing. If you want to talk world philosophy, let’s talk world views cleanly without dragging your interpretations of Christianity into it.

    That’s fair enough. When you start talking about what is actually wrong with homosexuality without basing your arguments on Christian values, then we’ll get cracking.

  31. James R. said,

    January 12, 2009 at 8:35 pm

    The “After the Ball” strategy is brilliant yes, but based completely on promoting untruth, as they admit in the book. The authors admit that homosexuality has it’s problems, but advises that these ugly parts of the lifestyle be concealed and naysayers attacked as hateful bigots. It’s interesting how closely the movement toes the line without actual acknowledgment of these brilliant authors.

  32. beetlebabee said,

    January 12, 2009 at 8:45 pm

    “When you start talking about what is actually wrong with homosexuality without basing your arguments on Christian values, then we’ll get cracking.”

    Perhaps I missed something. Which Christian value did I base my argument on?

  33. waltzinexile said,

    January 12, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    James,

    Kirk and Madsen were not themselves promoting gay rights, just suggesting that the gay rights movement should clean up its image (as many organizations and movements use PR to do.) PR is about managing information to promote organizations and/or agendas.

  34. Liberty Belle said,

    January 12, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    They weren’t promoting gay rights? Where do you get that? I thought they were gay themselves weren’t they? They wrote a whole book on the subject, isn’t that promotion?

  35. Liberty Belle said,

    January 12, 2009 at 9:03 pm

    Goldn’Silver, I’ve been doing some reading on Trayce Hansen’s work in reviewing the issues surrounding sexual preference affecting the next generation:

    Based on the average found in the following nine studies, 14% of children raised by homosexual parents develop homosexual or bisexual preferences. These studies reported rates of non-heterosexuality ranging from 8% to 21%. The most frequently reported percentages were 14% and 16% (two studies each). For comparison purposes, data from the best national surveys report that approximately 2% of the general population is non-heterosexual (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels,1994). Therefore, if these percentages hold true in better designed studies, children raised by homosexuals appear to be about seven times more likely to develop homosexual or bisexual preferences than children raised by heterosexuals. And, as was explained earlier, 14% may be an under-estimate due to the young ages of many of the subjects in these studies.

    http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_sexpref.html

  36. goldnsilver said,

    January 12, 2009 at 9:59 pm

    That is an interesting study.

    To be honest, I’m not surprised by their findings. I think that society is far more bisexual than it believes and that it is only social restrictions (such as religious belief, cultural norms etc) that realistically stop a higher percentage of bisexual and homosexual behaviour occuring. Once these are taken away (as in raised in a family where orientation isn’t a problem), the numbers increase

    My question is; why does this worry people?

    It gives me the impression that one of the reasons that people don’t want gays to adopt is not because of the ‘safety and health of the child’, but also because they are afraid that these children will suddenly become another evil gay person.

  37. beetlebabee said,

    January 12, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    There are two basic problems with homosexuality as it pertains to parenting, one is that gender matters and homosexual parents by definition exclude one gender from the parenting mix. The other finding is the influence their homosexuality has on children, and the higher incidences of sexual confusion in children of homosexual parents.

    21 Reasons Why Gender Matters

    1. Gender uniqueness and complementarity means that each gender has a unique contribution that can’t be filled by the other.
    2. Acknowledging gender differences helps children learn more effectively.
    3. Men and women are happier when they recognize these gender differences.
    4. The masculine gender is an essential ingredient for fatherhood.
    5. The feminine gender is an essential ingredient for motherhood.
    6. Marriage is the best way for men and women to enjoy complementarity.
    7. Gender complementarity in a life-long marriage is essential for the continuation of humanity.
    8. Gender complementarity in marriage is needed for a healthy, stable society.
    9. Gender complementarity in marriage between a man and woman is good for the economy.
    10. Marriage between a man and woman is the foundation of a successful family and best way to protect children.
    11. Gender complementarity in marriage is the best way to teach children about the value of gender.
    12. Gender is important in understanding the significance of manhood.
    13. Gender is important in understanding the significance of womanhood.
    14. In healthy societies, gender complementarity is celebrated; societies rejecting this face harmful consequences.
    15. Healthy gender development prevents individuals from developing compulsive obsessive disorders leading to sexual addiction and other pathologies.
    16. Gender disorientation pathology is a symptom of family dysfunction, personality disorder, father absence, health malfunction or sexual abuse.
    17. Gender disorientation pathology will lead to increased levels of drug abuse and partner violence.
    18. Gender disorientation pathology will increase the risk of communicable disease and bad health.
    19. Gender disorientation pathology will decrease life expectancy.
    20. Gender disorientation pathology is preventable and treatable.
    21. Gender disorientation pathology encourages the sexual and psychological exploitation of children.

    The study concludes with a list of 20 public policy responses to gender disorientation pathology.

    The authors note: “Given the importance of the two genders, it is imperative to promote heterosexual marriage and the biological two-parent family. The evidence makes it clear that these two institutions provide the best environment for individuals, for societies, and for children.”

  38. goldnsilver said,

    January 12, 2009 at 11:57 pm

    1. Gender uniqueness and complementarity means that each gender has a unique contribution that can’t be filled by the other.

    I agree that genders are unique and do contribute specially to the upbringing of a child. However, it is somewhat short sighted to believe that a child will not have any exposure to the opposite gender to their gay parents: What about grandparents, uncles, aunts, family friends, caretakers, teachers?

    2. Acknowledging gender differences helps children learn more effectively.

    More effectively at what exactly? And how can you prove that. If its about their own gender or gender roles, they’ll learn from the world around them. Relatives, school, media etc.

    3. Men and women are happier when they recognize these gender differences.

    Again, this is highly opinion based and subjective. There are a lot of people out there who are not traditionally feminine or masculine, yet live fufilling lives. Also, there is evidence that many straight couples happily reverse traditional gender roles without ill side effects. Whether or not someone is happier when they recognize their gender differences is definately not provable or a point on gay parenting.

    4. The masculine gender is an essential ingredient for fatherhood.
    5. The feminine gender is an essential ingredient for motherhood.

    To traditional parenthood. Personally, I thought love, protection and trust are more important qualities for parenthood; not whether Dad is winning the bread and playing catch with son or whether mum is sympathising and baking cookies.

    6. Marriage is the best way for men and women to enjoy complementarity.

    Since when does one size fit all? Don’t you realise that people are different and what works in one household won’t work in another? For some couples, staying in a de facto relationship is out of the question, where as others find the idea of marriage repulsive.

    Either way, if the government would allow gay marriage this point would be moot. Even though it doesn’t actually have to do with gayness…

    7. Gender complementarity in a life-long marriage is essential for the continuation of humanity.

    No, producing more humans is the sure way to continue humanity.

    Again, this point is vague.

    8. Gender complementarity in marriage is needed for a healthy, stable society.

    I feel as if I’m banging my head against a brick wall. I agree that marriage is an integral part of the stability of society. But why, oh, why is gender one of the most important elements of marriage? Shouldn’t love, respect and co-operation be more important, regardless of the gender of both people?

    9. Gender complementarity in marriage between a man and woman is good for the economy.

    Marriage is good for the economy – but that’s any kind of marriage, not just straight marriages.

    10. Marriage between a man and woman is the foundation of a successful family and best way to protect children.

    I will admit that it is the foundation for successfully birthing a child. Biologically, sperm and egg must mix to create life – so in that sense straight couples are ahead because gays have to rely on friends of the opposite gender, adoption, surrogate mothers or sperm banks.

    As for child protection, I don’t see how the sexuality of the parents have to do with that, but if you want to get gritty here are some statistics:

    Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as friends of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases. Most child sexual abuse is committed by men; women commit approximately 14% of offenses reported against boys and 6% of offenses reported against girls

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

    So statistically speaking, any household with a male parent is a higher risk, including straight couples and homosexual male couples. The least risk zone is actually lesbian couples. Does this mean we should start legislating that all children should be cared for by lesbians? Of course no, its absurd, but so is worrying about sexual abuse by gay people before it happens.

    11. Gender complementarity in marriage is the best way to teach children about the value of gender.

    Refer to my first comment about getting gender related influences by other relatives. Also, best is very subjective. Also, why marriage? A child can learn gender roles from their defacto parents or even step parents.

    12. Gender is important in understanding the significance of manhood.
    13. Gender is important in understanding the significance of womanhood.

    This is very similar to 4 and 5, see my answer there.

    14. In healthy societies, gender complementarity is celebrated; societies rejecting this face harmful consequences.

    Examples of both ends of the spectrum please. This is a very broad, generalised comment. And what harmful consequences might these be also?

    15. Healthy gender development prevents individuals from developing compulsive obsessive disorders leading to sexual addiction and other pathologies.

    It seems that someone in a gay household will supposedly be raised in a box, come out at 18 screaming ‘AM I ARTHUR OR MARTHA?!’ and then run screaming into a psyche ward.

    The path to compulsive obsessive disorders and sexual addiction are very complicated and have existed for a long time before the word ‘gay’ even recognised, let alone the community. Let me remind you that the majority of those people in the past with these disorders were brought up in straight households, if not all of them.

    16. Gender disorientation pathology is a symptom of family dysfunction, personality disorder, father absence, health malfunction or sexual abuse.
    17. Gender disorientation pathology will lead to increased levels of drug abuse and partner violence.
    18. Gender disorientation pathology will increase the risk of communicable disease and bad health.
    19. Gender disorientation pathology will decrease life expectancy.
    20. Gender disorientation pathology is preventable and treatable.
    21. Gender disorientation pathology encourages the sexual and psychological exploitation of children.

    Where are you gettting all these from? And let me remind you that we haven’t actually proven that someone in a gay household will actually have gender disorientation.

    It seems that you are feebly banking all your arguments on hoping that someone who is raised in a gay household will become a crazy paedofile. This is all subjectiveness, how about you actually go out and ask a large group of people who have been raised by gay parents how they feel. I’m not saying that things can’t go wrong – but that is about bad parenting, a human issue that has plagued mankind throughout the ages, not what sexuality the parents are.

    There was a documentary made about Rosie O’Donnell organising a cruise ship for gay/bi/lesbian/trans communities and their children to go on. Please take a look at it and you’ll see that they aren’t all crazed paedofiles.

    In the end, I don’t expect to change your mind. I respect that you have strong, concise opinions and you seem like an intelligent person. I’d also like to thank you for responding to my comments thoughtfully . I’m mainly doing this in an effort to throw some differing opinions out on the table for your consideration. I understand that your religion speaks against homosexuality and as such, you will never be comfortable with it. However, I feel that you are pinning a lot of moral decay on homosexuality that just isn’t real, in an effort to try and get others to agree with you.

    I don’t know whether you actually know any gay people. You may or may not. But if you don’t, please try to get to know some. They are not filthy or scary. They are just people and they deserve to be treat that way, not like some stain on society.

  39. Liberty Belle said,

    January 13, 2009 at 4:09 am

    “What about grandparents, uncles, aunts, family friends, caretakers, teachers?” Everyone agrees that when a child loses a parent by death or divorce, it is a tragedy in the life of that child. Sure others can step in and try to fill the role of that parent, but everyone agrees that this is second best. Homosexual parenting may try to mimic the nuclear family but by definition it excludes one gender. That is not equal, and it’s not fair to a child to intentionally create motherless or fatherless children.

  40. beetlebabee said,

    January 13, 2009 at 4:28 am

    “one of the reasons that people don’t want gays to adopt is not because of the ’safety and health of the child’, but also because they are afraid that these children will suddenly become another evil gay person.”

    GoldnSilver, please don’t think that any view that I hold comes from a desire to demean or insult. I love a good debate, if you have a point, let’s look at it. I’m completely open to anything you have to present.

    The mistake many on the other side have made is in believing that the opposition to gay marriage and acceptance is strictly religious with no factual basis, when that is actually 180 degrees from the truth. It is support for gay marriage that has no factual basis for consideration. Where are the studies showing how great the lifestyle is, or touting the health benefits of gay sex? Perhaps there is a lack of funding for these types of studies?

    There is a lot of emotion in the issue, and understandably so, but no peer reviewed, scientifically based facts to back up the assertion that choosing the gay lifestyle is 100% just as good as choosing the heterosexual lifestyle. I am concerned with this trend because we’re basing our society’s future on unproven theories.

    Doesn’t that concern you?

  41. January 13, 2009 at 4:52 am

    It is interesting that you said that Liberty Belle, there is a growing number of adults who have been created by donor sperm via IVF. They don’t know at least one of their biological parents and this is causing a lot of pain. Sometimes it happens that biological parents die and their children never meet them but to deliberately create them from a no name donor is not fair.

  42. beetlebabee said,

    January 13, 2009 at 5:02 am

    “Where are you getting all these from? And let me remind you that we haven’t actually proven that someone in a gay household will actually have gender disorientation.”

    These were from a study called “21 Reasons Why Gender Matters” by the Fatherhood Foundation. It’s quite readable and down to earth in language.

    http://www.gendermatters.org.au/Home_files/21%20Reasons%20Why%20Gender%20Matters(low%20res).pdf

    Each of the 21 conclusions is footnoted, researched and documented with references to nearly 200 sources. It’s quite an excellent piece of work. I highly recommend it.

  43. Stephanie said,

    January 13, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    BB-

    “The other finding is the influence their homosexuality has on children, and the higher incidences of sexual confusion in children of homosexual parents.”

    Can you explain what you mean by sexual confusion?

  44. beetlebabee said,

    January 13, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    Stephanie, I mean when people feel confused about which sexual orientation they identify with. Kids are impressionable and take cues from parents. It’s a natural consequence that when mixed signals are sent regarding sexuality and gender roles, that instances of greater sexual confusion, or SSA, are more prevalent.

  45. January 13, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    goldnsilver,
    Before answering Beetle’s points as if they are just wishful thinking on her part, it’s important to look at the document that she copied them from where there is quite a bit of support in scientific studies for the seemingly outrageous claims. I have looked at the paper and at many of the data sources and found them to be very cogent and well constructed scientifically.
    There is a wealth of knowledge behind the claim that “There are very real consequences to homosexual behavior.” I’m hoping that Beetle makes a follow-up post that specifically lists them as she has done here with smoking :-).

    Stephanie,
    I think Beetle meant “Gender confusion” as described in the 21 reasons document. Sexual confusion is actually when children are born with ambiguous genitalia.

  46. beetlebabee said,

    January 13, 2009 at 6:52 pm

    Troy, Thanks for the clarification.

  47. Stephanie said,

    January 13, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    BB-

    I hear what you are saying but how many homosexual folks have come from heterosexual parents? I’m certain those heterosexual parents did not influence their kids to be homosexual, right?

  48. beetlebabee said,

    January 13, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    It’s not completely clear what exactly pushes someone over the edge toward homosexuality, but our current understanding is that there are several contributing factors, none of which “cause” homosexuality on their own but all of which contribute:

    What Causes Homosexuality?

    What, then, are the causes of homosexual attractions? These feelings typically stem from a combination of temperamental factors and environmental factors that occur in a child’s life. According to Whitehead and Whitehead (1999), “Human behavior is determined by both nature and nurture. Without genes, you can’t act in the environment at all. But without the environment your genes have nothing on which to act” (p. 10). One way of understanding this combination might be expressed in the following equation:

    Genes + Brain Wiring + Prenatal Environment = Temperament
    Parents + Peers + Experiences = Environment
    Temperament + Environment = Homosexual Orientation

  49. goldnsilver said,

    January 14, 2009 at 12:13 am

    It is support for gay marriage that has no factual basis for consideration.

    We are talking about a human right here. You are walking a very dangerous theoretical line. Where are the scientific papers that prove that straight people deserve the right to marry?

    Where are the studies showing how great the lifestyle is, or touting the health benefits of gay sex? Perhaps there is a lack of funding for these types of studies?

    There is a lot of emotion in the issue, and understandably so, but no peer reviewed, scientifically based facts to back up the assertion that choosing the gay lifestyle is 100% just as good as choosing the heterosexual lifestyle. I am concerned with this trend because we’re basing our society’s future on unproven theories.

    Doesn’t that concern you?

    Like I said before, I don’t see either gay or straight lifestyle as being ‘better’ than one another – so asking me to pull out scientific facts about the uber awesomeness of gay lives is pointless.

    You can’t quantify an entire group of human existense into percentages and happiness metres. To be honest, asking for such a thing is simplistic and patronising. They can, and will, do studies about homosexual life, happiness and health – however statistics are always generalisations and subject to the imperfect methodology.

    Let’s say that they did a study on the average health, happiness etc of straight people. At the end of the day, what would that achieve? Will you stop having sex with the opposite gender if the results of the scientific analysis aren’t good? Do you honestly believe that your life can be summarised by repeated testing?

    I think one of the misconceptions that you have is that people joyfully choose to be gay because of some deranged sexual appetite. Why would someone actually choose to be something that will earn scorn and disgust potentially from everyone they know, even their loved ones?

    So no, it doesn’t concern me.

    These were from a study called “21 Reasons Why Gender Matters” by the Fatherhood Foundation. It’s quite readable and down to earth in language.

    http://www.gendermatters.org.au/Home_files/21%20Reasons%20Why%20Gender%20Matters(low%20res).pdf

    Each of the 21 conclusions is footnoted, researched and documented with references to nearly 200 sources. It’s quite an excellent piece of work. I highly recommend it.

    Thank you for the link, I’ll be sure to read.

  50. { Lisa } said,

    January 14, 2009 at 1:20 am

    “Why would someone actually choose to be something that will earn scorn and disgust potentially from everyone they know, even their loved ones?”

    The same reasons people choose to rape, molest, abuse children, murder and a whole host of other acts that disgust their loved ones and soceity.

    Every gay person I ever knew was unhappy with thier life, when drunk they would hit on the opposite sex which is very telling to me about where their true desire is.

  51. January 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    “Every gay person I ever knew was unhappy with thier life, when drunk they would hit on the opposite sex which is very telling to me about where their true desire is.”

    I imagine that many people who have a same sex attraction don’t want it. I also suspect that many have tried to pretend it does not exist and married a person of the opposite sex. Others simply remain single while others give in to their desires and pursue homosexual sexual relations. From my perspectives non of these alternatives seem very appealing in our modern over sexed world.

    Beetlebabee, the causes of same sex attraction appear to be very complicated, Iots of factors involved.

  52. Stephanie said,

    January 14, 2009 at 5:31 pm

    Lisa-

    “The same reasons people choose to rape, molest, abuse children, murder and a whole host of other acts that disgust their loved ones and soceity.”

    Do you honestly believe someone chooses to be gay for the same reasons as one murders, rapes, abuses and molest?

    What are the reasons again?

  53. beetlebabee said,

    January 14, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    The choice involved here that I referred to is the choice to act. For some in the wide spectrum of homosexual tendencies, they may have an element of choice in their orientation, but even if they don’t consciously choose their orientation, we always have a choice in choosing how we act.

  54. beetlebabee said,

    January 14, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    “We are talking about a human right here. You are walking a very dangerous theoretical line. Where are the scientific papers that prove that straight people deserve the right to marry?”

    GoldnSilver, marriage is not a human right. There are all kinds of people society withholds marriage from, and for good reason.

    There is only one time tested and proven family structure that has succeeded in the many diverse and culturally separate societies on the earth. In all those independently evolving societies, the nuclear family is what works best in perpetuating societal stability. There are no homosexual societies that survive. That is science right there.

  55. { Lisa } said,

    January 14, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    Stephanie,

    Yes I believe so. It’s called selfishness. People want what they want and they want it right now. This is an “all about me” world we live in these days. And Yes I believe that homosexuality is chosen and not some genectic predisposition.

    I think that people choose to be homosexual because of things that have happened to them, emotional or phsyical or psychological, the same goes for rapists, abusers, murderers and pedophiles.

    I also think that all the above can 100% be cured from their sickness. I actually know two people who have been cured/healed of this sickness.

  56. January 14, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    Well said BB. Marriage is the institution by which the human race continues to exist. Sex is about babies, and there is an important fact about babies: They are helpless and require an enormous amount of care and attention. It’s a full-time job more than one person can handle. Even when they grow out of the infant stage, children still need two parents to take care of them and provide for the family.

  57. January 14, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    Yes I believe that homosexuality is chosen and not some genectic predisposition. I’m not sure myself. Homosexual acts are definitely chosen and this is a serious problem. As to what causes same sex attraction I don’ t know. Even if it were proven that genetics causes same sex attraction that doesn’t make homosexual acts ok. There are all sorts of genetic errors in our bodies for which we would like to be cured of.

  58. { Lisa } said,

    January 14, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    Thats true.

  59. goldnsilver said,

    January 14, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    GoldnSilver, marriage is not a human right. There are all kinds of people society withholds marriage from, and for good reason.

    You can dress it up all you like, but marriage is a human right.

    I’m sorry, but its truly pathetic that you think that way. The fact that you would take away other people’s rights just so you can sleep better at night shows the extremely sad side of humanity.

    There is only one time tested and proven family structure that has succeeded in the many diverse and culturally separate societies on the earth. In all those independently evolving societies, the nuclear family is what works best in perpetuating societal stability. There are no homosexual societies that survive. That is science right there

    And what says that there can’t be different, just as successful families? There aren’t any homosexual societies because homosexual’s are persecuted. Nice way of cherry picking history there.

  60. goldnsilver said,

    January 14, 2009 at 8:50 pm

    By the way, you still haven’t addressed many of the points I brought up against your so called ’20 reasons’

  61. Liberty Belle said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:03 pm

    goldnsilver: BB already addressed that by referring you to the article link which is self explanatory.

  62. Raytmimer said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:04 pm

    If marriage is a human right, then why can’t sisters marry?

  63. Raytmimer said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:04 pm

    or brothers and sisters?

  64. goldnsilver said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:05 pm

    Yes, I saw and noted that (i’m currently in the process of reading the link). But she didn’t refer to a lot of the points I made that don’t have to do with gender disorientation, or even the counter points I made, at all.

  65. Raytmimer said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:07 pm

    or a guy and two girls? …..it only gets weirder from there….. Why have any limitations at all? Those are the implications of the human right argument.

  66. goldnsilver said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    Because in case you didn’t notice, brothers and sisters are related, and marriage is a union between people who aren’t related.

  67. rubyeliot said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    yeah but what makes it wrong for brothers and sisters to get married?

  68. goldnsilver said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:17 pm

    Because incest produces children that are likely to have health problems….duh.

  69. rubyeliot said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:17 pm

    what makes it wrong for more than two people to all be married together?

  70. rubyeliot said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    but we have lots of screening programs which would eliminate that problem. what if the woman and/or the man took medical precautions to prevent marriage?

    if you think marriage is about having children, then you need a man and a woman.

  71. rubyeliot said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    excuse me that should say:

    what if the man and/or woman took medical precautions to prevent pregnancy?

  72. rubyeliot said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:20 pm

    the brother and sister, i mean (or cousins in some states).

  73. goldnsilver said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:20 pm

    I understand what you are trying to do. The old ‘if we let homosexuality happen, what will happen next?’

    That technique of discussion not going to work. Why don’t you try to address the actual points at hand, rather than going of into ‘what ifs’ about goats and babies and threesomes getting married?

  74. Stephanie said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:24 pm

    Because it just isn’t good to cheat on your spouse or partner?

  75. Stephanie said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:25 pm

    The #74 was in response to the #72 comment.

  76. beetlebabee said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:27 pm

    There are consequences to actions. Kids make that mistake all the time. You can’t do what you want to do without having also the consequence. If you lay aside the rules, then who is going to tell Jane, John and Julie that they can’t have the relationship they always wanted? Who are you to deny them?

  77. Raytmimer said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    Watch out Goldnsilver, you may be the next class of bigot making moral decisions like that based on personal preference and excluding true love.

  78. goldnsilver said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:32 pm

    Where is this ‘laying aside the rules’ bullshit actually coming from?

    Gay marriage is asking whether two people, regardless of gender, can get married, rather than the old adage that it must be between man and woman.

    This will not suddenly spiral into incest, threesomes and beastiality or a culture of non responsibility. It amazes me that you have such little faith in humanity – it must be a fundemental lack of trust in yourselves.

  79. goldnsilver said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    you may be the next class of bigot making moral decisions like that based on personal preference and excluding true love.

    Considering the marriages I debunked involved incest and had logical reasons not to be allowed (such as the lack of health in incestuous offspring reason), I’m sure that your proclamation won’t come to pass.

  80. Stephanie said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:38 pm

    Now this doesn’t seem very productive.

    Remind me again, what is the consequence of homosexuality again?

  81. rubyeliot said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:40 pm

    Stephanie, can you clarify your response?

    G&S: why can’t we go down that road? the attempt to legalize gay marriage is already going down that road.

    it’s saying: why isn’t it okay for two people of the same gender to marry? so after that door is opened, can’t you see how it weakens any reason for keeping marriage exclusive?

    Your reluctance to answer the question shows your hesitancy to admit: marriage has inherent moral restrictions.

    you think it’s wrong for siblings to marry. why is that belief not equal to my belief that it’s wrong for homosexuals to marry?

    government doesn’t care about marriage for purposes of love, sexual attraction, sexual expression, etc. Government cares about marriage because it provides an orderly society for children to be born. A couple can choose to have kids or not, but if they have kids they are committed to raising them together.

    Yes, divorce has weakened marriage, yes, lots of people are not awesome parents, but the answer is not to extend marriage to a group of individuals so that they can gain some sort of perceived social status at the expense of children.

    Especially when this group of people is not inherently built to provide children what they need:
    a. to be born
    b. to be raised learning from both genders (there is no scientific evidence that shows that same-gender parents are as good a situation as the intact traditional family– i’m not going to advocate a social experiment on children)

  82. rubyeliot said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:42 pm

    GoldnSilver:

    What if the siblings are older than childbearing age?
    is it still wrong?

    What if they are unable to have children?

    What if the sibling marriages are required to screen pregnancies for diseases?

    Why exactly is incest wrong?

  83. rubyeliot said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:43 pm

    Also, if it is wrong for siblings to get married because they have high chances of producing off-spring with issues, is it also wrong for couples to marry even if they are unrelated and have a high chance of their children having genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis, etc?

  84. goldnsilver said,

    January 14, 2009 at 9:48 pm

    why can’t we go down that road? the attempt to legalize gay marriage is already going down that road.

    Because it isn’t going down that road, the attempt to legalize gay marriage is focussed on one purpose only – legalising gay marriage.

    As such, your points are moot.

    I’m not here to argue about incest.

  85. rubyeliot said,

    January 14, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    But I’m interested in your arguments against incestual marriage because they reflect a weakness in your argument for homosexual marriage.

    If homosexual marriage is okay, then what is it about incestual marriage that isn’t okay?

    So far you have said incestual marriage is not okay because any children born may have a high chance of abnormalities.

    But homosexual marriage cannot even produce children. So this is an argument against homosexual marriage.

    And if we eliminate children for the equation all together…why would incestual marriage be wrong if homosexual marriage is allowed? Don’t two siblings meet the same criteria: Two people committed, who love each other.

    What if two sisters simply want to provide a home where their children (from previous boyfriends/husbands) can be loved and marriage provides them tax breaks etc?

    Why is incest wrong goldnsilver?

  86. rubyeliot said,

    January 14, 2009 at 10:23 pm

    You also didn’t answer my question about couples not being allowed to marry if they are carriers for genetic diseases.

  87. Pearl said,

    January 14, 2009 at 10:34 pm

    Interesting, GoldnSilver. The only reason “it isn’t going down that road” for you is because if same-sex “marriage” is legalized, then you are satisfied. But what about the polyamorists and polygamists and incestuous types who are not satisfied? It isn’t about having faith in humanity. Humanity, as you call it, is still making the right decisions by holding off redefinition (in some states and countries, anyway). Are we to put our faith in polyamorists and polygamists and incestuous people? Faith that they will not demand the same thing you have? Recognition of their supposed “rights” to marry whomever they will for love? Because if they see a break in tradition, if same-sex “marriage” is legalized, they will absolutely jump at the chance to “make their case in court,” if you will.

    And then, say they scream so loud and threaten and stomp their feet and we’re suddenly taking a vote on whether or not they can marry, how will you vote, GoldnSilver? Is your same-sex “marriage” more important than their polygamist “marriage” or incestuous “marriage?”

    Slippery slope is not a logical fallacy. It is not. It is quite logical, in fact, when applied correctly.

  88. Stephanie said,

    January 14, 2009 at 10:40 pm

    Ruby-

    I understand what you are saying, I do. I understand your concerns and I am not disregarding them. However, it is in my very strong opinion that your concerns are not necessary. I agree that marriage is sacred. I agree that marriage should be exclusive and taken seriously.

  89. beetlebabee said,

    January 14, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    “However, it is in my very strong opinion that your concerns are not necessary.”

    Why?

  90. January 14, 2009 at 10:58 pm

    Ruby, you raise some excellent questions (85). I am eager to here goldnsilver’s answers.

  91. Stephanie said,

    January 14, 2009 at 11:49 pm

    BB-

    Ok, this is totally in nut shell without a great deal of detail-

    Because there are so many gay and lesbian couples already out there raising healthy, good for the society, children. I have seen many wonderful things happen. Good things.

    I’m certain there are plethora of reason why we aren’t hearing a lot of those stories.

    I keep imagining the conversation in my head over and over again if the shoe was on the other foot. It plays out something like this…………

    You can’t allow those heterosexuals to marry. Their lifestyles are promiscuous, they have a very high rate of STDS, studies show that they are unfaithful in their relationships, domestic violence cases are high, most of the parents don’t give their kids the nurturing attention they need because they are too busy either working or playing, they’re drug addicts, alcoholics and are just plain unhappy and unhealthy.

    And the list of reasons why heterosexuals should not marry goes on and on.

    All of the things I listed above are true, but they have nothing to do with one’s sexuality. They have everything to do with how a PERSON behaves.

    Regardless of whether they are gay or straight.

  92. beetlebabee said,

    January 15, 2009 at 12:13 am

    You would have a point except that in proportion to one another, homosexual risks are far higher. Right? As much as I would like to believe that you live a healthy life, and that you are not one of the statistically large number of homosexuals who live an unhealthy, dangerous lifestyle, I have to admit that many are, and were you to raise children, they would still be denied a father. That is part of the unhealthy.

  93. Raytmimer said,

    January 15, 2009 at 12:51 am

    I personally have nothing against people who choose to smoke, or people who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, I do have a problem with calling homosexual relationships marriage, and I have a problem with the idea that they are families and putting them in a position where they raise children, and then calling it equal. It is not equal. For lesbian parents, there is no dad involved. That is a huge problem. Sure there are instances of death and divorce which take dads out of the picture, but how can you say that single parenting or parenting without a dad is equal to a family that has a mom and a dad available to their children?

    aren’t dads important?

  94. { Lisa } said,

    January 15, 2009 at 1:25 am

    I am also very interested in what goldnsilver will answer to those questions…

    you up for it goldnsilver?

  95. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 1:28 am

    Stephanie thank you for your comment. The problem is that you are not representative of everyone and what could easily happen in the future.

    Mom and Dads are necessary. Children need one of each to be born, and hopefully one of each to learn from as they grow up. You are in favor of the marginalization of dads? Or the marginalization of moms?

    Just because you think it’s not necessary for a child to have their dad living in their same house with their mom…doesn’t mean it’s not important for the child.

    When a lesbian discusses having a child on purpose meaning to raise it with her partner and outside role models…it’s denying the child any opportunity to experience the love of a father, denying the child any opportunity to create true and personal memories with a father. Role models can’t satisfy the need for a father–even for children whose fathers have died or abandoned them. They will always want their father. Role models are substitutes, they are the best we can do considering the circumstances.

    Yes, ray, dads are important. just as important as moms.

    that’s why marriage is so cool: it takess both a man and a woman–no gender is marginalized

  96. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 1:29 am

    Secular,

    I’m interested to hear goldnsilver’s response also.

  97. goldnsilver said,

    January 15, 2009 at 1:32 am

    Humanity, as you call it, is still making the right decisions by holding off redefinition (in some states and countries, anyway).

    Here is my answer.

    Have you noticed that in the countries where gay marriage has been legalised none of the apparent abberent marriage behaviour has also been legalised.

    In the Netherlands, Polygamy has not been legalised. There haven’t been people marrying their sisters, or sheep.

    In fact, the very prescense of these countries legalising gay marriage without a marriage ‘black hole’ opening is proof of my previous statement:

    Because it isn’t going down that road, the attempt to legalize gay marriage is focussed on one purpose only – legalising gay marriage.

    I don’t know if its the same for America. Maybe your country has enough in the closet polygamist and beastiality freaks to warrant concern.

    Stephanie, I second your post (91). The fact that heterosexuals ignore these facts, or dress them down saying ‘but it happen less with us’, is hypocritical.

  98. Stephanie said,

    January 15, 2009 at 1:33 am

    BB-

    Homosexual risks are far higher than heterosexual risks? I can’t answer that. There is an awful lot of promiscuity and bad decision making going on in both communities.

    Let’s say a teenager has come to realize they are gay. This is big. They realize they are different than a lot of others around them. For far too many this is not exciting news because they have heard the messages that being gay is wrong, so they automatically begin to live in fear and shame. They are not comfortable talking to their parents or friends about it.

    For many, the only resource they have is to learn from is gay porn, which is usually put together by someone who is heterosexual trying to make a buck. If they have no one they can turn to to teach them how to work through it, how to be responsible for the sexuality, what do you think may happen? I think there is a very high chance that they won’t know how to use their sexuality and they will turn to some pretty promiscuous activities.

    Much like the heterosexual teenager who was never taught to not sleep with every boy that says “I love you.”

    There are many factors to consider and I can’t speculate.

    Our kids are not denied their Father. They have him and a entire community of people that love them and affirm them as they grow. They are healthy, smart, vibrate, strong and not to mention, adorable.

    Peace to you.

  99. goldnsilver said,

    January 15, 2009 at 1:43 am

    There are many factors to consider and I can’t speculate.

    I think this is something Steph and I are trying to hammer home.

    Generalising, relying on ‘studies’ and tarring an entire community with the same is an inevitably a pointless excercise.

    Everyone’s lives are complicated, whether gay or straight. To say one or the other is wrong or right, is simple minded and false because there are millions of factors that determine who someone is, how they got there and where they are going.

    Our kids are not denied their Father. They have him and a entire community of people that love them and affirm them as they grow. They are healthy, smart, vibrate, strong and not to mention, adorable.

    Your all so worried about the kids – but here is Stephanie, a lesbian parents, telling you that her kids are fine on the whole. We also had another lesbian parents in another topic echoing the same idea.

    You could say that both parents are presenting what they want other people to see with some devious twist. However, I think that its far simpler than that. I think their kids are actually happy.

  100. { Lisa } said,

    January 15, 2009 at 1:53 am

    I am noticing that goldnsilver is refusing to answer a few pretty good questions about his stance on this issue??? Why?

  101. goldnsilver said,

    January 15, 2009 at 1:58 am

    I’ve noticed that you’ve never ever answered any of the questions I’ve posed. It’s not worth even talking to you anyway, as the dictionary debacle in the Organisation topic shows, you are actually incredibly stupid.

    Can you read? I gave you my answer on 97.

  102. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 2:01 am

    Stephanie:

    The research shows the homosexual couples are way more promiscuous than heterosexual married couples. The average homosexual marriage in the Netherlands lasts less than 2 years.

    Are you suggesting that teenagers struggling with SSA go right to expressing their desires? This is problematic for a lot of reasons. Mainly physical health.

    Speaking of gay sex: even if the two partners have no previous std’s anal sex (and its variations) open the participants to a variety of diseases. Whenever you are dealing with the bum area–it’s kind of dangerous.

    There are also studies that show that committed gay relationships are actually more risky than non-committed relationships because the participants are open to more risky behaviors.

    This is compounded if one of the participants already has an std like aids.
    sources:
    Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.

    Jon Garbo, “More Young Gay Men are Contracting HIV from Steady Partners,” GayHealth (July 25, 2001).

    Sexual activity during teen years is not healthy for any teen: gay or straight. It’s especially problematic emotionally becuase SSA can be a red flag for other psychological problems. The reason homosexuality was dropped from the list of disorders was because gay activists said: we don’t think there is anything wrong with us.

    Homosexuals saying they like being gay, does not erase the statistical data showing a whole host of psychological issues that can accompany SSA (issues with one of the parents, issues with abuse, etc.).

    If teenagers are suffering with SSA they should be in therapy (and they for sure should not be having sex). Whether they want to work on sexual orientation or not, SSA is a sign that there are probably other serious issues that need to be addressed.

    p.s. i’d like to know what your children really think, inside their souls, when they aren’t trying to make you happy because they love you. If their father is not in their house. On purpose. because you chose to be a lesbian and live with your partner…that is selfishly denying them their father.

  103. goldnsilver said,

    January 15, 2009 at 2:04 am

    p.s. i’d like to know what your children really think, inside their souls, when they aren’t trying to make you happy because they love you. If their father is not in their house. On purpose. because you chose to be a lesbian and live with your partner…that is selfishly denying them their father.

    My God.

    How could you be so self righteous and cold? What makes you think you can judge anything about their lives?

    Stephanie you don’t have to answer that utter bullshit.

  104. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 2:06 am

    Goldnsilver,

    You never answer the question of why incest-marriage should be illegal. If we take biological children out of the equation (remember that gay couples cannot have biological offspring), why would you deny the right of a brother and sister, or two brothers, or two sisters the right to marry?

    Also, we are speaking of future/generations here. Gay marriage has not even been legal in the netherlands for ten years. So in fifty years, would incest-marriage still be wrong?

  105. goldnsilver said,

    January 15, 2009 at 2:13 am

    You never answer the question of why incest-marriage should be illegal. If we take biological children out of the equation (remember that gay couples cannot have biological offspring), why would you deny the right of a brother and sister, or two brothers, or two sisters the right to marry?

    That’s because it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

    The links you’ve made are thin, if even there. I even humoured you and brought up an example of Netherlands, where despite gay marriage being legalised incestual marriage has not. But you will never be satisfied, because even if it were legalised 50 years ago, you’d say ‘but what about in 100 years?’

    You say that I don’t answer questions; I try to answer them all considering its a whole website of people versus me and Stephanie. However, few of you have replied to my points.

    Its actually getting pointless for me, because I answer all the questions, you cherry pick parts you think you have a good answer to, instead of facing the whole picture.

  106. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 2:14 am

    How could you be so self righteous and cold? What makes you think you can judge anything about their lives?

    Excuse me goldnsilver, but do you think forcing your children to separate from their father so you can love someone else (of either sex) is unselfish? it sounds pretty self-righteous and cruel to me.

    I’m not sure if this is stephanie’s situation, but any man or woman who leaves their family so they can love someone else…is selfish, cruel, and destructive to their children.

    They say: my needs are more important than your need to have a family and security and safety for which the entire rest of your life will be built on.

    I’m still waiting an answer from you GnS:
    Why is it wrong to deny a brother and sister the right to marry if they love each other?

  107. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 2:18 am

    Other kinds of marriage have everything to do with gay marriage. Because if we allow one to be legal, how can we deny the other kinds?

    The answer you don’t want to say is:
    incest is wrong.

    If same sex marriage is permissible because an individual has the right to marry whomever he or she loves, the only intellectually honest reason for prohibiting other types of extreme alternative marriages is that they are not socially acceptable. But once you accept that society has a right to limit some marriage relationships, you recognize society’s right to also define marriage in a way that benefits society as a whole.

  108. waltzinexile said,

    January 15, 2009 at 2:21 am

    ruby,

    The Xiridou study had many different protocols over the life of the study (1984 – 1998), which resulted in a study population that was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, excluded monogamous participants, was predominantly urban, and consisted only of those under the age of thirty. It was not a study of gay relationships, it was an AIDS study. For Xiridou’s purpose, that was fine, but it is not indicative or representative of even Amsterdam’s gay men, nor their relationships, let alone gay men anywhere else.

  109. goldnsilver said,

    January 15, 2009 at 2:30 am

    Excuse me goldnsilver, but do you think forcing your children to separate from their father so you can love someone else (of either sex) is unselfish? it sounds pretty self-righteous and cruel to me.

    I’m not sure if this is stephanie’s situation

    Check your last sentence. You don’t know if that is Stephanie’s situation, hence my outrage at you assuming it and asking her questions like that based on your assumptions.

    Ruby, see my prior points. I’m sick of typing the same thing over and over to you, obviously because you can’t read or follow logic.

    The Xiridou study had many different protocols over the life of the study (1984 – 1998), which resulted in a study population that was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, excluded monogamous participants, was predominantly urban, and consisted only of those under the age of thirty. It was not a study of gay relationships, it was an AIDS study. For Xiridou’s purpose, that was fine, but it is not indicative or representative of even Amsterdam’s gay men, nor their relationships, let alone gay men anywhere else.

    Thank you.

  110. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 2:47 am

    Waltz,

    Oh I forgot, it’s well known among gay men that monogamous relationships are virtually nonexistent.

    There are also studies that show that committed gay relationships are actually more risky than non-committed relationships because the participants are open to more risky behaviors.
    This is compounded if one of the participants already has an std like aids.

    The study illustrates this point.

    From the Xiridou Study
    Conclusion:
    Most new HIV infections among homosexual men in Amsterdam occur within steady relationships. Prevention measures should address risky behaviour, specifically with steady partners, and the promotion of HIV testing.

    First paragraph of the introduction:
    Data from the Amsterdam Cohort Study (ACS) among young homosexual men suggest that a substantial proportion of new HIV infections occur within steady partnerships [1]. Despite the intensive campaigns promoting safe sex practices among homosexual men in Amsterdam, risk-taking remains at substantial levels, especially among steady partners. Such behaviour has increased recently [2,3], and there are worries that it may even counterbalance the beneficial effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in reducing HIV viral load and infectivity [4].

  111. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 2:56 am

    goldnsilver, what is your point?

    we are all trying to figure that out.

    how can you back up homosexual marriage if you cannot back up other forms of marriage?

    I don’t know exactly why you are re-quoting waltz’s comment when it shows that men are more at risk for transmitting HIV/AIDS in a stable relationship.

    It was Stephanie who brought her children into the discussion. She was speaking for them and trying to convince us that her children are not “denied” their father. It was her, using her perception of her kids (although I don’t doubt they are adorable), to convince others that all children with lesbian or gay parents will be healthy, smart, vibrate, [and] strong.

    I won’t apologize for questioning that statement. I hope it is true, but it is not representative of all cases. We have no way of even knowing if it represents the majority of similar situations.

  112. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 3:02 am

    Okay, I’m reviewing your points:

    GoldnSilver said (comment #99):
    Everyone’s lives are complicated, whether gay or straight. To say one or the other is wrong or right, is simple minded and false because there are millions of factors that determine who someone is, how they got there and where they are going.

    Why can’t we include incest relationships in this paragraph? What makes them wrong? And as long as we are talking about right and wrong…why is polyamory wrong? And since you keep bringing it up…why exactly is bestiality wrong?

    Everyone’s lives are complicated, GoldnSilver, to say it’s wrong for a brother and sister to get married is simple minded and false because there are millions of factors that determine who someone is, how they got there and where they are going.

    how do we decide if one or the other is right?

  113. waltzinexile said,

    January 15, 2009 at 3:04 am

    Ruby,

    The quotes that you mention are not from the Xiridou study, they are from the Garbo article about the study. Again, this is not a representative sample of gay men in any way; this is a data sample from the Cohort Study that Xiridou pared down for the purpose of determining how HIV was being spread among gay men over a time period. It’s not about relationships; the protocol excluded monogamous men. The determination that men with steady partners were contracting HIV at a higher rate than men with casual partners highlighted the need for public health officials to remind even men in committed relationships to practice safer sex (because it had been determined that the increase in HIV infection among committed partners could be tied to not taking as many precautions when in a committed relationship.)

  114. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 3:14 am

    waltz,

    that still shows that a gay man is more at risk to contract HIV from a steady partner if the partner already has HIV/AIDS
    This is compounded if one of the participants already has an std like aids.

  115. waltzinexile said,

    January 15, 2009 at 3:18 am

    Ruby,

    I wasn’t disputing that anyone with a partner who has HIV is at a higher risk for getting the virus. Of course, this holds true for heterosexual couples, also.

  116. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 3:21 am

    I’m looking at the study in the 2003 AIDS journal. All I have is the abstract and the full text of the study. There is no article by Garbo.

    You can look it up yourself. I’ll give you the reference again:

    Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.

  117. waltzinexile said,

    January 15, 2009 at 3:31 am

    Ruby,

    I got the Garbo cite from you; it’s from GayHealth magazine. I was confused by the “Conclusion” you stated because I was looking only at the fulltext of the Xiridou study, not the abstract, and that statement appears exactly in the Garbo article. I see now what you were quoting. However, I still don’t understand what it has to do with the committed monogamous relationships.

  118. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 3:33 am

    You are certainly right that a heterosexual couple is at risk if one of the partners has HIV/AIDS.

    However, gay sex always opens its participants to infection and disease (like I said before, the bum area is not that clean). So even if a partnership is “steady” or “monogamous”–their sexual practices are not healthy for their body–married or not.

    In contrast, very few married couples risk infection or disease through vaginal sex (which is physically healthy for both parties–especially women), unless they have been exposed to std’s before the marriage. In this way, heterosexual marriage is literally healthier for society.

  119. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 3:35 am

    oh i’m so sorry waltz for the confusion. i took those quotes directly from the xiridou study. okay, i feel better that we got those things cleared up.

  120. waltzinexile said,

    January 15, 2009 at 3:40 am

    Ruby,

    Can you provide citations to research to back up your claim “gay sex always opens its participants to infection and disease.” This selectively ignores the fact that some married heterosexual couples also engage in anal intercourse. Additionally, it would not apply to lesbians.

  121. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 3:42 am

    oh, i thought i made that clear before:
    HIV/AIDS is still a concern with “committed” relationships. I don’t use the term monogamous, becuase those are extremely rare. Most gay men, consider it normal to have several other sex partners even in committed relationships.

    I suppose if a partnership was exclusively monogamous with no prior exposure to HIV/AIDS, they wouldn’t need to worry…however, there are still other health problems related to anal sex (and other gay sex behaviors).

  122. waltzinexile said,

    January 15, 2009 at 3:47 am

    Ruby,

    I still don’t see from the Xiridou study anything that supports your claim that monogamy among gay men is rare and/or that several other partners are considered normal even in committed relationships.

    Also, you are still ignoring the fact that heterosexual couples engage in anal sex. And I still don’t understand how any of this would apply to lesbians.

  123. Raytmimer said,

    January 15, 2009 at 4:05 am

    Just thought I’d throw this out there…..since we were talking about the slippery slope and all…. this marriage is a legal “triad”.

    The War against Marriage and Men
    From the desk of Alexandra Colen on Mon, 2005-12-19 22:07
    Victor de Bruijn and his two wives
    Stanley Kurtz of the Hudson Institute has a long and interesting analysis in this week’s Weekly Standard on the Dutch “trio marriage” that was reported on the Brussels Journal (BJ) three months ago. The marriage between Victor de Bruijn and his two “wives,” Bianca and Mirjam, was not a case merely of polygamy, but one of polyamory, Kurtz explains. Contrary to bigamous/polygamous relationships, where one person has a sexual relationship with multiple partners, polyamory denotes a relationship in which all partners have sexual relations with one another. This is the case in the Dutch trio-marriage, where the partners sleep in the same bed and where the two women, who are bisexual, have sex with Victor as well as with each other.

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/585

  124. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 4:09 am

    Waltz, you are correct. However, anal sex is not the norm for married couples (in the USA).

    The bum area is the most dangerous part of the body when it comes to transferring diseases. So anytime you are messing with that area by putting various body parts in/around the near vicinity—there’s going to be problems.

    Here’s one site that talks about the risks.
    It’s pretty graphic, for any other (silent) participants in this forum:
    Anal Health for Men and Women,” LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/analhealth/; “Safer Sex (MSM) for Men who Have Sex with Men,” LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/stdmsm/.

    Any sort of protection, condoms, lubricant, cleanliness, only reduces the chance of contracting any one of the diseases or issues (which run the scale of life-threatening to really really annoying).

    Married people who do not participate in anal sex also do not need to worry about hemorrhoids. They do not need to worry about anal cancer. They do not need to worry about anal fissures. Married couples who do not participate in anal sex do not need to worry about parasites. They do not need to worry about hepatitus A (unless they also live in a developing country where bathroom sanitation is poor…or if they use needles for drugs).

    Married people still have plenty of healthy sexual expressions for which to bond, express their love, (at least one of which actually produces children).

    Lesbians, it seems do have a free pass. Except that some studies show they are at high risk for stds, because they tend to be more promiscuous (with men) than straight women.

    However, two women can’t create a child.

    I think we should reserve a special name for a legally committed relationship capable of creating a child. I think it’s okay if we call this kind of relationship marriage.

  125. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 4:11 am

    Ray,

    I’m just off to bed, is this relationship legally recognized in the netherlands? as marriage?

  126. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 4:15 am

    Ray, thank you for the link to the article. I answered my own questions:

    “It is notable, Kurtz observes, that apart from the conservative blogosphere, which picked up the BJ article about the Dutch trio marriage en masse, the American media devoted no attention to this story. This is significant, he explains, as “of course, the mainstream American press understands that the triple Dutch wedding cannot be spun in a way that helps the cause of same-sex marriage with the American public.” What also strikes him is the fact that in the Netherlands the triple marriage barely caused a ripple. Apart from the conservative religious fringe, the secular Dutch did not protest. On the contrary, Victor and his wives were welcomed by their neighbours, while Piet Hein Donner, the Dutch minister of Justice and a Christian-Democrat, not only refused to dissolve the contract between the polyamorous triad, but even “articulated the rudiments of a ‘conservative case for group marriage.’”

  127. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 4:23 am

    so they have a cohabitation contract. which is similar to a civil union. cohabitation contracts were also given to same-gender (two-person) unions before gay marriage was legalized in the netherlands.

  128. Pearl said,

    January 15, 2009 at 5:44 am

    GoldnSilver,

    Part of your #97 comment reads:

    “Have you noticed that in the countries where gay marriage has been legalised none of the apparent abberent marriage behaviour has also been legalised.

    In the Netherlands, Polygamy has not been legalised. There haven’t been people marrying their sisters, or sheep.”

    I believe Ruby already mentioned this, but it bears repeating so repeat it I will. The Netherlands, the first country in this entire world to legalize same-sex “marriage,” did so a mere eight years ago in 2001. Our family doctor once told me that if I wanted to safely vaccinate my children, I would always refuse the newest, experimental vaccinations; those still unproven in safety and effectiveness. If you were asked to give your child an experimental vaccination that was only eight years old and was peddled with splotchy studies and high emotion, would you do it? No, naturally, you would first want proof that it wouldn’t hurt your child. And time is the best test for experimental drugs…and relationships.

    So enough pressuring. If you are so sure that same-sex “marriage” is just fine, then why can you not wait patiently for time, study, reason, and prudence to prove you right? Since it has been embraced in the Netherlands, what better opportunity to step back and allow another country to willingly act as guinea pigs while we study the long-term results and effects of their legislation? What are you so afraid of? Why do you fear time and temperance? Perhaps your fear lies in the knowledge that time could prove instead that those cautioning a slippery slope were actually accurate in their concerns, thus effectively closing your window of opportunity here in the states?

    Now, all these interesting questions aside, this claim that all is hunky dory in the Netherlands following legalized same-sex “marriage,” is rocky at best. In 2007, BBC News released an article entitled Incest: an age-old taboo. In this report there can be found a small yet significant blurb which begins simply, “In the Netherlands meanwhile, where consensual incest is no longer prosecuted….” In 2008, though polygamy was still supposedly illegal in the Netherlands, they nevertheless, began recognizing polygamous marriages performed abroad which were then transplanted to the Netherlands.

    Redefinition breeds more redefinition. Desensitization seductively breeds acceptance.

  129. { Lisa } said,

    January 15, 2009 at 10:02 am

    “I’ve noticed that you’ve never ever answered any of the questions I’ve posed. It’s not worth even talking to you anyway, as the dictionary debacle in the Organisation topic shows, you are actually incredibly stupid.

    Can you read? I gave you my answer on 97”

    You never asked ME any quetions and as for the other questions you asked, they have been asnwered several times. The answer you gave on Q97 doestn answer the question asked of you in several other posts. YOu are avoiding it on purpose. FYI it’s the one in questions 104, 106, 111 & 112.

    so instead of calling me names because I have an opinion different than yours why don’t you answer the questions.

  130. Bojovius said,

    January 15, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    Good job, GnS. I’m really (non-sarcastically) proud of you. You kept your cool for the most part and refuted dozens of mis-phrased statements.

    I’m proud of a lot of the other posters, too, especially the author, for keeping the arguments rational and even (mostly) scientifically based!

    Healthy debate is a good thing, but you’ll all see that you’ve scared off GnS, who probably won’t post for a while now, or at least not in this forum.

    As for me, my dear favorite is post #124:
    “I think we should reserve a special name for a legally committed relationship capable of creating a child. I think it’s okay if we call this kind of relationship marriage.”

    That’s gorgeous. Should we deny rights to non-procreating couples? I don’t think that’s fair. But to deny that there’s a difference between a committed, procreative relationship and all the other types is sort of silly. The right to a legal designation is always held to an eligible group. I think gays can be as happy with domestic partnerships as they ever would be with marriage–maybe more so. Elton John is. And is trios and sibs want to cohabitate (whether they have sex or not is NOT our business) then perhaps they should be allowed to have domestic partnerships, too.

  131. Ruby said,

    January 15, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    Bo–

    Thanks for you comment.

    All things perfect, a man and a woman can create a child. If a kidney isn’t working, do we stop calling it a kidney?

    Also, could you be specific about “mis-phrased” statements. Maybe we can clarify them for you.

    We all hope GnS comes back. I’m still interested in his rationalization of gay marriage but not incest-marriage. Especially considering the evidence Pearl and Ray have presented her.

  132. Ruby said,

    January 15, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    um…that should say…”here”

    my keyboard is sort of having spatial difficulties today

  133. Stephanie said,

    January 15, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    Ruby-

    “p.s. i’d like to know what your children really think, inside their souls, when they aren’t trying to make you happy because they love you. If their father is not in their house. On purpose. because you chose to be a lesbian and live with your partner…that is selfishly denying them their father.”

    I can’t imagine saying “I’d like to know what your kids really think.” to you about your kids, if you have them. Your insinuating comment was very unnecessary. Ruby, I’m under the impression there is not much desire on your part to understand or believe, only a desire to defend.

    For the record, my partner did not leave her husband to be with me or any other woman. Assumptions are bad, really bad.

    You Ruby have not walked a moment in someone’s shoes when they come to accept the fact that they are gay.

    Many people are so eager to talk about the consequences of homosexuality but do we honestly think about the consequences of NOT allowing one to grow up to be who they really are. What are the different things that could happen to that individual?

    It’s worth thinking about, but only if we wanted to be open and honest about this subject. Perhaps one day you may be able to put the shoe on the other foot and see what you cannot see now.

    I’ve enjoyed the conversation and I thank you. I am exiting the conversation now to tend to my family.

    Be blessed.

  134. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 8:33 pm

    Have you walked in your childrens’ shoes? I’m sorry if I sound harsh, but its harsh to tell your children, or your partner’s children, that they don’t deserve to live in a home with both their mom and their dad.

    Many people are so eager to talk about the consequences of homosexuality but do we honestly think about the consequences of NOT allowing one to grow up to be who they really are. What are the different things that could happen to that individual?

    I don’t care if people are gay, but I will question people who use sexual orientation as an excuse/justification/rationalization for stripping children (with no choice in the matter) of their right to have a mom and a dad living with them, in the same house.

    Again, you brought your children (or your partner’s children) into this discussion. You used them as justification for your choices. You used them as models for the norm (knowing there is no scientific evidence to support). You used children. You continue to use them even in your parting comment.

  135. Liberty Belle said,

    January 15, 2009 at 8:40 pm

    I came across this article today, thought I’d toss it into the mix:

    New CDC Report Warns Syphilis is Still Ravaging the Homosexual Community

    Syphilis, a disease close to being eliminated as a public health threat less than a decade ago, has increased each year since 2000 and remains a serious threat to the health of homosexual and bisexual men, says the latest statistical report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    In 2007, men who have sex with men (MSM) continued to account for the majority of primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis cases, representing 65 percent of the 11,466 P&S syphilis cases reported. Increased transmission among MSM is believed to be the primary driver of increased rates of syphilis overall in the United States.

    Syphilis among MSM is of particular concern because it can facilitate HIV transmission and lead to irreversible complications such as strokes, especially in those who already have HIV. The CDC recommends that all MSM be tested for syphilis at least annually.

    See the full CDC report:
    http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/syphilis.htm

  136. Stephanie said,

    January 15, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    Ruby-

    Ah, no Ruby, I really need to tend to my family. Not use them, not take advantage of them, not abuse them, but take care of them and spend time with them.

    Instead of throwing out more assumptions and accusations, please think about what I wrote about consequences.

    Ok, I’m really leaving now. Peace.

  137. rubyeliot said,

    January 15, 2009 at 10:34 pm

    Peace Steph.

  138. SlinkyPea46 said,

    January 16, 2009 at 3:15 am

    New to this blog. New to this thread. Very impressed that Ruby is willing to ask hard questions out loud.

  139. beetlebabee said,

    January 16, 2009 at 4:43 am

    “Many people are so eager to talk about the consequences of homosexuality but do we honestly think about the consequences of NOT allowing one to grow up to be who they really are. What are the different things that could happen to that individual?”

    That is an interesting thought Stephanie. Are you implying that in order to avoid suicide, frustrated repression etc, that someone with SSA has to act on their impulses?

    I guess it depends on what is meant by “who they really are”, because that is really the question. Is homosexuality an identity? or one of many natural and human flaws we must each overcome in order to “be” our real best selves and find fulfillment and joy.

    An interesting thought.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: