First Darwin and then Homos? Never!

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ask yourselves - truely think about it, please - why you oppose gay marriage.

Nice post Arrian

However, I wouldn't say I am against gay 'marriage' per se. I am against two things:

1. People making false arguments for gay marriage which people are frightened to contradict because they will be branded a 'homophobe' (just like in this thread). I find it rather astounding that the 'fab four' claim that people who had gay relationships in the past but now believe themselves to be straight are lieing to themselves. I think this is incredibly bigoted. So when people make statements such as it is impossible to change one's sexual orientation I feel obliged to object. I don't think the state should in any way enforce or put pressure of any kind on people to do this. I just think it is a screaming insult to those who have done it.

2. I object to the statement that gay marriage is the same thing as straight marriage. It is not. One is a commitment between two people of the opposite sex while the other is a commitment between two people of the same sex. These are not the same things. I don't think the state should be saying they are the same.

Now, I personally don't think that they should be given the same name - so I am against 'gay marriage' . I have no problem with civil unions though (as I have said repeatedly) with the same tax breaks as marriages. Indeed, I would rather do away with state sanctioned marriages altogether, for hetro couples as well as homo, and have things like hospital visitation rights done in a different way. I don't see why married couples should get a tax break over couples who live together (often for many years) without having had a ceremony.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
1. People making false arguments for gay marriage which people are frightened to contradict because they will be branded a 'homophobe' (just like in this thread). I find it rather astounding that the 'fab four' claim that people who had gay relationships in the past but now believe themselves to be straight are lieing to themselves. I think this is incredibly bigoted. So when people make statements such as it is impossible to change one's sexual orientation I feel obliged to object. I don't think the state should in any way enforce or put pressure of any kind on people to do this. I just think it is a screaming insult to those who have done it.

Funny that you yourself are making two unfounded statements here. The first is the notion that people are "frightened" of contradicting our evil gay cabal. Maybe people believe of their own accord that gay marriage is right? You contradict yourself in this same paragraph. If you're so offended by our supposedly second guessing the mindsets of the "sexually converted," why are you second guessing the mindsets of those who support gay marriage and aren't gay. How insulting it is to assume anyone who isn't gay who supports gay marriage must be a frightened patsy of the gay mafia.

The second unfounded assertion is that it has been shown people can change their sexual orientation. You've offered no evidence of your own, and I've presented you with the most comprehensive studies on it done by mental health professionals, and those studies show it is, as far as all the evidence says, not possible to actually alter one's sexual orientation. Suppress it? Yes. Force oneself to act contrary to it? Yes. Change it? As far as has been observed empirically, no. Where are studies supporting your view?

Remember John Paulk? He was the poster boy of the changed orientation. I think he serves as the prime example of the effectiveness of changing orientation. Here he was, supposedly changed. Married with kids, and splashed across the newspapers in ads to say how he was converted, and anyone could be. Lo and behold, a few months later he is discovered in a Baltimore gay bar, chatting up the fellas flirtatiously. It was a monumental embarrassment, virtually destroying Exodus' reputation overnight. And Paulk finally admitted what Exodus' founders had said--he never changed his sexual orientation, he just acted contrary to it. And he couldn't even keep that up.

The studies I posted verified this. You're just ignoring them with the kind of stonewalling typical of BK when it comes to these arguments.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Nice post Arrian

However, I wouldn't say I am against gay 'marriage' per se. I am against two things:

1. People making false arguments for gay marriage which people are frightened to contradict because they will be branded a 'homophobe' (just like in this thread). I find it rather astounding that the 'fab four' claim that people who had gay relationships in the past but now believe themselves to be straight are lieing to themselves. I think this is incredibly bigoted. So when people make statements such as it is impossible to change one's sexual orientation I feel obliged to object. I don't think the state should in any way enforce or put pressure of any kind on people to do this. I just think it is a screaming insult to those who have done it.

2. I object to the statement that gay marriage is the same thing as straight marriage. It is not. One is a commitment between two people of the opposite sex while the other is a commitment between two people of the same sex. These are not the same things. I don't think the state should be saying they are the same.

Now, I personally don't think that they should be given the same name - so I am against 'gay marriage' . I have no problem with civil unions though (as I have said repeatedly) with the same tax breaks as marriages. Indeed, I would rather do away with state sanctioned marriages altogether, for hetro couples as well as homo, and have things like hospital visitation rights done in a different way. I don't see why married couples should get a tax break over couples who live together (often for many years) without having had a ceremony.

Boris already did a good job refuting your statements here, but I couldn't refuse to add my three cents.


With regards to your statements in number 1:

Go and find, then talk to an older/middle aged man who has been married, but got a divorce once he found that he could not longer suppress his homosexuality and still live a happy life. Let him explain, in his own words what me, Boris, and others have tried to explain. You will likely find that this person will reinforce what we have already tried to explain -- that heterosexist conformity pressure led older generations of gay men to marry someone of the opposite gender. They never did change their sexual orientation -- they repressed it through the psychological process of denial.


Now as to your statements in number 2:

Concepts and institutions throughout human history has changed over a period of time. Concepts and institutions are also different from one culture to another. To claim that marriage is, and always will be, a conceptualization of exclusively a union between two people of the opposite gender is to make the fallicious claim that concepts and institutions do not change over time -- that they are static and stagnant.

[Drake Tungsten]

2. I object to the statement that gay marriage is the same thing as straight marriage. It is not. One is a commitment between two people of the opposite sex while the other is a commitment between two people of the same sex. These are not the same things. I don't think the state should be saying they are the same.

Now, I personally don't think that they should be given the same name - so I am against 'gay marriage' . I have no problem with civil unions though (as I have said repeatedly) with the same tax breaks as marriages. Indeed, I would rather do away with state sanctioned marriages altogether, for hetro couples as well as homo, and have things like hospital visitation rights done in a different way. I don't see why married couples should get a tax break over couples who live together (often for many years) without having had a ceremony.

[MrFun]

And Drake pulls down his pants and pisses in ANOTHER thread.



sigh

[Drake Tungsten]

Is my lone thumbs-up really that offensive to you? The man makes a good point...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
2. I object to the statement that gay marriage is the same thing as straight marriage. It is not. One is a commitment between two people of the opposite sex while the other is a commitment between two people of the same sex. These are not the same things. I don't think the state should be saying they are the same.

For that matter, a "marriage" between a young heterosexual couple who want to have kids, buy a house and engage in other joiint economic activity as a family, etc., is "different" from a "marriage" between an octogenarian widow and widower who are essentially seeking companionship late in life.

Then again, there are golddigger marriages like Anna Nicole Smith and that 90-year old coot with a billion or so to his name.

There there's arranged marriages in some cultures, one could make a racial or ethnic or nationalist argument about marriages between people of different ethnic, religious or national backgrounds.

They're all "different" but what is that difference within the legal context of marriage as defined by the state? What compelling reason would the state have to classify such relationships differently?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Is my lone thumbs-up really that offensive to you? The man makes a good point...

He just has "thumb envy."

[MrFun]

Damn, MTG you're good with pyschological insight -- I really do have thumb envy!!

[MichaeltheGreat]

It's that small?

[MrFun]

har, har

[Elok]

Rogan, there is one and only one way to prove them wrong. Take the challenge. Give some lucky man in your life a blowjob and prove that you got yourself to enjoy it. That'll prove once and for all that sexual orientation is changeable.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Elok
Rogan, there is one and only one way to prove them wrong. Take the challenge. Give some lucky man in your life a blowjob and prove that you got yourself to enjoy it. That'll prove once and for all that sexual orientation is changeable.

But wait - in order to prove he has changed his orientation, he'd not only have to convince himself to enjoy giving a hummer to a bloke, but to enjoy it more than making it with a chick.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I can't speak for Rogan or anyone else, but sorry, your hairy, sweaty asses just don't do it for me.

[Drake Tungsten]

He just has "thumb envy."

Damn, MTG you're good with pyschological insight -- I really do have thumb envy!!

It's that small?

har, har