Which websites shouldn't be on the net?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris- good. All it took was a little flame to get to some of the better arguments.

This is an issue quite important to me, so petty flames are not appreciated. I'd prefer they be left out of it. Say what you mean, don't incite, please.

Agreed. Nowhere do I say all heterosexual sex is healthy or good. This is why this next part is so important.

So please stop bringing up supposed homosexual promiscuity as a rationale for delegitimizing same-sex couples. If it applies to heterosexual couples as well, it is an irrational double standard to use it as a qualification for the value of relationships.

Boris- is this your ideal? Do you strive for this kind of relationship? I have heard some argue that it does not matter one bit. Why should gay people follow the old standards?

At this point in my life, I'm not actively seeking a permanent relationship, but that has more to do with my current career and socio-economic status than my being gay. I can certainly, easily, see myself getting "married" to the right guy someday. I would at least like the right to do so.

At any rate, the "why should gay people follow the old standards" argument is flawed, as it shows you're thinking of marriage in terms of tradition. Tradition is meaningless in terms of legal rights. What matters is what is fair. If gays want to get married, for whatever reason, I believe it is their right to do so. The fact is being married carried with very important benefits that gays would like to have. In fact, it's been enumerated at somewhere like 1,400.

And what do you mean by longterm? I use lifelong as the ideal, the standard, 'till death do you part.

As I said before, I doubt you are a prognosticator. The majority of heterosexual relationships are not life-long, and that number is increasing all the time. A longterm relationship is simply one in which the two people involved intent to remain together, monogamously, for an indefinite period of time.

Finally, do you have the percentage that actually sustain a lifelong relationship?

It's fairly impossible to say, but that's due to many factors. First, gays have not had the luxury of being open for very long, so couples that have been together until they die of old age are naturally going to be rare. But that is not very meaningful, as, given the large numbers of gays who want same-sex marriage laws and take advantage of them where they exist shows, there is clearly many gays who wish to form lasting bonds. They should have that right.

Again, important point. Source? I have seen the opposite reported, that having two parents, a mother and a father works best.

In order to do a proper comparison, you have to compare those children raised by two homosexuals, with those who are raised by both the mother and father. If you compare a few gay families with all others you skew the results.

I've never seen any credible study done to support that gay parents are somehow less fit than straight parents. Here's a summary of the Hawaii case:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare1.htm

At any rate, if upper middle-class parents will produce healthier, happier children than those of, say, lower class parents, should the state deny poor people the right to marry? If statistics show black couples raise children better than white couples, should the state only allow blacks to marry? It's an irrational argument, because all sorts of factors effect what is best for different children. There were undoubtedly some couples who could have raised you a little better than your own parents. So should you have been taken from them and given to a "better" family?

Come to think of it, all of the f*cked up people I know are products of heterosexual homes. So what does that say?

I will also ask about yourself- would you feel inclined to emulate this example?

To have kids? Hell no, not now. That may change, but it's not for me. But what that has to do with anything? Do you really think that's due to my being gay? No, it's due to my not really liking kids or being interested in the sacrifices parents have to make. Lots of gays have kids and want to have kids. I'm not one of them.

The key word here is 'accepted.'

If by accepted you mean treated on par with monogamous married heterosexual couples, than no.

If by accepted you mean treated on par with common law couples who most certainly are in love and want to share their lives together. Then you already have that, at least in Canada.

First, you've failed to provide any consistent argument as to why it shouldn't be accepted that isn't also just as applicable to heterosexuals.

The second point is just offensive. Don't like it? Move to Canada! Why should gays have to move to another country to partake in benefits that should be theirs HERE? I guess you might like it if gays all up and left the country, but it won't happen. Would you like to be told you had to move to a foreign country to get married? Do you think it's that easy?

In either case I will still argue that to get married is superior to the other two, in terms of psychological, and physical well being of the parties involved.

What about it? Did I argue marriage was somehow bad? Dude, I'm arguing FOR marriage for gays. If you want gays to have more psychological and physical well-being, then support same-sex marriages. Gays are fighting for the right to marry precisely because they think this is true.

Marriage also encourages the production of children, something I don't see you arguing for monogamous homosexual couples.

What are you talking about? I've been saying that gay couples make perfectly fit parents. So of course I think homosexual couples should have the right to raise children.

However, I am distressed at your seemingly shallow reasoning for people getting married. In my experience, the marriages that fail most are those entered into by young people following the traditional path mindlessly, doing what is expected--getting married and having babies--without truly thinking about what they really want and if they really want to spend their lives with the other person. That's why most first marriages fail, IMO. And I've seen a lot of the screwed up kids as a result. Worse, unfit heterosexual couples can have kids by accident. At least gay couples have to REALLY want their kids, considering the legal hoops involved.

Why is it hypocritical to argue the opposite? It is the same standard I hold for myself. There are good reasons to restrain oneself from having intimate contact with everyone whom he is attracted to.

It's hypocritical if you deny homosexuals the right to marry. If you want to promote abstinence before marriage, fine--but at least then give homosexuals the right to marry and THEN hold them to your same standards. To say homosexuals are immoral because they have sex out of wedlock, and then deny them the ability to wed, is an unfair Catch-22.

You live in the hope and anticipation you will find a woman to love and wed and settle down with. Why you are so keen to deny this right to those who love their own gender is baffling.

As for all conduct, it is only rational if there is a better option out there. This is what I have been trying to argue all along. Many former homosexuals have testified that they are much happier in their new life than their old.

Ahhh, I was waiting for the "ex-gay" argument. Truly irrational. Ever wonder why groups like Exodus adamantly refuse to release any statistics on success rates? They just claim success in big ads in newspapers. Well, guess what? Ex gay groups don't work. They don't change sexual orientation, they don't permanently repress sexual desires, and they certainly don't make people happier. Remember their posterboy, John Paulk? They splashed him and his "ex-lesbian" wife all over newspapers saying gays could change, he was the proof. Where did they catch Paulk a couple of years ago? In a gay bar in Baltimore, chatting up men. Oh, how irate Exodus was and how they vanished from the national scene so quickly!

Oh, and care to know what happened to the two men who founded Exodus?

[Datajack Franit]

I know! I know! They stole every single penny from the org and fleed together to the tropical islands

[Boris Godunov]

Hehe, nope... they fell in love, left the organization, got "married" (ok, committment ceremony) and denounced it as the crock of BS it was. And, IIRC, they're still happily together.

Mental health experts have denounced such organizations as preying on vulnerable people and causing much stress (being a failed ex-gay is, after all, worse than being homosexual for some). There's also the wee little fact that psychological studies show there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be altered by will, and trying to do so is likely to cause great emotional distress while attempting to do so.

[aahz_capone]

Jesus H Christ!

You guys make something so simple seem so complex! Must be all that pent up sexual frustration. Get a "oral sex while swallowing semen" (Datajack Franit, you joker ! ) and chill!

Over here in holland, at least in my social circles, no one could give a toss what orientation you are and how that affects something or other bla bla bla...

anyway, what the hell is a "failed ex-gay" ???

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by aahz_capone
Over here in holland, at least in my social circles, no one could give a toss what orientation you are and how that affects something or other bla bla bla...

Exactly as it should be!

anyway, what the hell is a "failed ex-gay" ???

Ah gay person who tries to "convert" to heterosexuality and is unsuccessful. So in other words, a redundant phrase.

[aahz_capone]

wow! holy sh!t I didn't even know you could make up terms like that... and I'm a trekkie!

you have to be one confused talking-with-sick-fuks renegade fundamentalist wannabe to try... to convert... hetero... unsucces....

sorry, I can handle quantum mech but my brain can't grasp this concept.

This implies that there were erm... "successful" erm.. converts... They don't just get the fact that they are bi?

[Boris Godunov]

"Successful" in terms of changing orientation? No. In terms of repressing it, sure...but how can that really be a "success," since the continued sexual attraction to the same gender is a source of torment?

John Paulk certainly isn't someone I would want to imitate. Now he's ****ed up the lives of several people because of this ex-gay nonsense.

[aahz_capone]

OMG! I looked up John Paulk on google and found a torrent of (pos and neg) crap! How do people buy into this ****? If you're gay, why would you want to stop?

There's even still his original story at

http://www.anotherway.com/pages/john.html

I love this quote:
"Today, I'm happily married and I hear "man, husband, and Christian." "

Christian?!

[Boris Godunov]

The problem is that there are plenty of miserable gays, but these groups prey on them in that they attribute the misery to just being gay. Paulk was living a crappy life, but that wasn't because he was gay--it was because he was stupid and made horrible choices on how to live as a gay man. Had he been heterosexual and living the same way, I'm sure he would have been just as miserable.

But instead of doing what a normal person would do, he jumped to conclusion he had to change his sexuality to be happy. The result is a man who professes to be changed and happy on the outside, but is clearly still homosexual on the inside. In other words, a liar.

Lots of gays undergo this torture, though. That's the problem of being in an environment that treats homosexuality as something to be reviled. Of course they will fight it as much as they can. They just won't "win" that fight.

[SpencerH]

What's not there to be understood? Some people believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice (and a sin) rather than a biological difference. If you believe that, why wouldnt you try to 'help' just as you would someone who had made another bad choice such as drug use?

[Lorizael]

Assuming it's a choice, it's not necessarily a bad one.

But if it is a choice, it's certainly not a conscious one. People don't wake up and think, "You know, I'd really like to be gay!" Well, maybe some people do, but they probably don't follow through with it. And if they do, odds are they'll soon find out that they just can't do it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris- I have to apologise for the flame, I was tired of going around in circles, and wanted to get to some of the better arguments.

"Must be all that pent up sexual frustration."
-aaz_Capone

No comment

"The problem is that there are plenty of miserable gays, but these groups prey on them in that they attribute the misery to just being gay."

I agree with you here Boris- no one should be forced to go into counselling, it should be entirely self-motivated.
It will not work otherwise. However, those who do not want to be gay should be encouraged to leave the lifestyle. Right now, any psychiatrists who treat patients who want to change sexual orientation, can lose their licence from the APA. I don't agree with this policy at all. I think that if they were allowed to treat, that they could really help some people.

"Truly irrational. Ever wonder why groups like Exodus adamantly refuse to release any statistics on success rates? They just claim success in big ads in newspapers. Well, guess what? Ex gay groups don't work. They don't change sexual orientation, they don't permanently repress sexual desires, and they certainly don't make people happier."

Here is the response from Exodus- www.exodusnorthamerica.org

"What you are really asking is whether there is realistic hope for change for men and women who do not want their sexual orientation to be homosexual. And the answer to that is yes."

Here is another forum, not an ex-gay ministry

http://www.geocities.com/rainbowchristian1225/Discussion_on_Exgays.html

"Based on self-reporting by the patients to Schroeder and Shidlo, 14% did manage long-term to either greatly reduce or completely stop homosexual practices."

Regarding Paulk

"'We as a board wish to express our ongoing love, support, and commitment to John,' said a public statement issued by Bob Davies, director of Exodus. 'I hope that our redemptive response to this situation will be a godly example' to others, Davies continued...

"But we must not fail to recognize the power of this gesture. To Mr. Paulk, and more importantly to the thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of others like him still struggling with their Gayness, Exodus has sent a strong message: We will be there for you even in the bad times. You can depend on us, lean on us. We will not abandon you. We are your home...

"In Christian love, we are standing with John through this time. John is our friend and we love him. It has nothing to do with public relations. But those who don't know Christian love firsthand cannot understand how it works, and why we offer it."

As for moving to Canada, I'm Canadian! What I wanted to get at was your meaning for acceptance, which I now know you are fighting for gay marriage. I find this a much more credible argument than others who argue that marriage has no benefits, which I was paraphrasing earlier.

"The majority of heterosexual relationships are not life-long, and that number is increasing all the time."

Last I checked 50% of marriages fail, which means that the other 50%, or more than 50% of those who do marry stay together, since many people remarry.

Certainly this does not take into account common-law couples, which we both agree is less than ideal. Just because people fail does not make the institution invalid. It just means there are things to work on.

"A longterm relationship is simply one in which the two people involved intent to remain together, monogamously, for an indefinite period of time."

This is what I was looking for. I'm not trying to prognosticate, I'm just looking for your ideal. You are looking for a lifelong relationship? You plan to adopt kids? These all strengthen your argument for marriage.

"supposed homosexual promiscuity?"

Boris, many gay activists flaunt their promiscuity, because they argue that this is perfectly natural. I think we both agree that homosexuals, and heterosexuals should control themselves.

"This implies that there were erm... "successful" erm.. converts... They don't just get the fact that they are bi?"
-aaz_capone

Boris, your definition of sexual orientation as the gender that one primarily prefers does not allow for bisexuality. To accomodate this, you would need to set benchmarks, saying that bisexuals are those with a split of 40/60 - 60/40 or some other number.

"Come to think of it, all of the f*cked up people I know are products of heterosexual homes. So what does that say?"

You need a larger sample size.
And a proper definition of your categories

"In my experience, the marriages that fail most are those entered into by young people following the traditional path mindlessly, doing what is expected--getting married and having babies--without truly thinking about what they really want and if they really want to spend their lives with the other person."

Agreed Premarital counselling is a HUGE benefit to sustaining healthy marriages. I'm curious, what benefits of marriage appeal most to you?

I guess the real question is what is the purpose of marriage? Why does a society want or need marriage?