10 Reasons why Gay Marriage is Wrong!!

[Arrian]

It is both a rights and a benifits issue, Ben.

The right is the right to be able to do what other people do - to be accepted instead of shunned. If the label were the same for all, be it marriage or civil union or whatever, I think that would suffice.

As it stands now...

Marriage is for straight people. You know, the good people. The people that are normal and acceptable.

Gays can't get married, 'cause they're deviants and we don't approve of them.

It's pretty easy to see that. And if you were gay, how would that feel, eh?

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

You can think gay thoughts, but you can't have sex! It's for your own good, you know. Of course, impure thoughts are also sinful, so we'll have to work on that too.

Right, like the state can prevent you from having sex. But if you read what Mr. Fun had to say, you are still gay whether you are currently having sex with men or not. So my point makes sense that even if you choose to refrain from having sex with men, it does not prevent gay people from being gay.

I know it's a radical idea that you are not defined by your sexual preferences, but try to follow.

What I'm trying to explain to you, Ben, is that you don't have to stop gay sex in order to improve the STD situation. You have to get the same message through that you need to get to the hetero people: sleeping around, not using condoms, not getting tested/insisting on testing for your partner... these things can get you killed.

I see condoms and getting tested being the primary measures used to prevent stds. Yet we see the incidence rates rising.

Furthermore, as I've repeatedly stated, gay marriage can only help. Notwithstanding the idiotic study that used as its sample a bunch of people attending gay swinger parties (!!), I don't buy this "gays don't see marriage as a real committment" bull****. The gays who want to get married want to get married for the same reasons any of us do, Ben. To share their lives, and to have it formalized under the law. Even to have kids (be it via art.insem, or adoption).

Really. I suppose you've not seen the division within the gay movement over this particular issue. People have cited how bad hetero folks are to get married for the financial benefits, and do you really believe that gay people are so pure and different to not have similar motives?

I do buy the lack of commitment bull**** as you so put it. The numbers are staggering. The whole idea of a 'committed relationship' seems to mean that you have a partner that you spend most of your time with while you are free to have all the flings you want.

Now I don't know how marriage works for you arrian, but I can't see how a wife would put up with that kind of behaviour.

[Ben Kenobi]

These are figures on unmarried people in the first year of a relationship.

How many folks who have been steady for a year would have cheated on their partners? 66%?

Notice I do not say 'married couples'. I said steadys.

[Ming]

Again... I think if you would compare your "biased" stats to those of heterosexual couples who weren't married, they would be similar.

[Arrian]

I know it's a radical idea that you are not defined by your sexual preferences, but try to follow.

Ooooh.

Your "solution" to health problems in the gay community (which as we have discussed, are difficult to get good figures on) is for gays to stop having sex. Of course I concede that a gay who abstains is still gay! Duh. But your "solution" is to have them all abstain all their lives?

Would it work? Insofar as someone who doesn't have sex is unlikey to get a STD (obviously that's not the only way you get them, but we'll put that aside for now), sure. But I'd expect it would be about as effective as abstinence pledges and such. Not very.

I see condoms and getting tested being the primary measures used to prevent stds. Yet we see the incidence rates rising.

Because people aren't using the condoms and aren't getting the tests. Clearly we have to try harder. By the way, abstinence seems to be failing pretty spectacularly too. You're not gonna stop gay sex anymore than you're gonna stop hetero sex.

Remind me how this relates to gay marriage again?

I do buy the lack of commitment bull**** as you so put it. The numbers are staggering. The whole idea of a 'committed relationship' seems to mean that you have a partner that you spend most of your time with while you are free to have all the flings you want.

Now I don't know how marriage works for you arrian, but I can't see how a wife would put up with that kind of behaviour.

I'm sure you would be staggered by similar numbers amongst straights. But again, the ones who want to get married are, pretty clearly, seeking to settle down.

By the way, I imagine you'd be staggered by stats on heteros cheating on their spouses. Of course, we probably have such stats. We DO NOT have them for gays, because... gays haven't been allowed to marry!

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

BK: I don't understand. You're pro-life. You're favourable to a natalist policy. Why do you oppose of gay couples having children? Why are you opposed to life and populousness like that?

Okay, bear with me here.

Now, if you were a government and you wanted control over reproduction, what happens with respect to gay people? They can't have kids on their own, so they have to get 'outside' help so to speak. The majority seem to prefer artificial insemination.

Now, from what I have heard is that most banks restrict insemination to married couples, because they want to make sure that the married couples can have treatment for their infertility. Allocation of scarce resources.

Many folks have accused prolifers of not being concerned about how the children after birth, rather then before. However, the argument favour of restricting artificial insemination comes from the argument that these are the best homes in which to raise a child.

So if you were really prolife, it make sense to support finding the best homes for the kids available. I mean don't we all hear about how prolifers should be willing to adopt all the kids they can!

Secondly, if you were really a pronatalist, you would offer support for early marriage between men and women, and discourage 'alternative' relationships because they do not increase the number of children available. Early marriages are going to increase the number of kids.

[Arrian]

I note Ben's study does not provide the comparison stats for heteros. I'm unsure of how to google it, to be honest, especially from work...

-Arrian

[Arrian]

if you were a government and you wanted control over reproduction

Control over reproduction??

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Your "solution" to health problems in the gay community (which as we have discussed, are difficuilt to get good figures on) is for gays to stop having sex. Of course I concede that a gay who abstains is still gay! Duh. But your "solution" is to have them all abstain all their lives?

That's one option. The other is flamebait par excellance. Many folks who have decided that they are unhappy with their life as gay men and women have found success in marrying someone of the opposite sex. Now I know that everyone here is going to condemn living with someone that you don't love, and I agree. However, life is funny. Folks can and do fall in love despite their old desires.

Would it work? Insofar as someone who doesn't have sex is unlikey to get a STD (obviously that's not the only way you get them, but we'll put that aside for now), sure. But I'd expect it would be about as effective as abstinence pledges and such. Not very.

Actually, that depends on the study. If you write a pledge in a notebook, and leave the notebook in a drawer for 4 years, all the while going to high school and partying with your friends, then sure a pledge isn't going to work.

But add a few simple things like church and support from others who have pledged? You get quite different numbers.

Because people aren't using the condoms and aren't getting the tests. Clearly we have to try harder. By the way, abstinence seems to be failing pretty spectacularly too. You're not gonna stop gay sex anymore than you're gonna stop hetero sex.

Remind me how this relates to gay marriage again?

Your solution to this mess is gay marriage. In effect encouraging people to delve deeper rather then refrain. Using a condom and testing is not working without the effort to abstain.

I'm sure you would be staggered by similar numbers amongst straights. But again, the ones who want to get married are, pretty clearly, seeking to settle down.

By the way, I imagine you'd be staggered by stats on heteros cheating on their spouses. Of course, we probably have such stats. We DO NOT have them for gays, because... gays haven't been allowed to marry

Oh, I'm sure I would. But that still doesn't answer my question. The type of relationship that I have described above, would that work for most marriages?

[Arrian]

Trying to google "heterosexual relationship statistics" was unfruitful. The stats *must* be out there, but I'm doing a bad job of finding them.

Of course, I turned up a lot of fundy sites, many asserting that hetero aids was a "myth" and that gays are child molesters.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

I did find this.

AMSTERDAM, July 14, 2003 - As Canada and several U.S. states move toward the legalization of so-called homosexual "marriage," a new study has found that homosexual partnerships last, on average, only one-and-a-half years.

The study is based on the health records of young Dutch homosexuals by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service and published in the May issue of the journal AIDS. It also found that men in homosexual relationships have an average of eight partners a year outside their main partnership, adding more evidence to the "stereotype" that homosexuals tend to be promiscuous.

The findings are "proof positive that these relationships ... will never be as stable as a normal heterosexual relationship regardless of what institutions or laws are changed," said Pete LaBarbara, senior policy analyst at Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute, who predicts that homosexual promiscuity will remain "rampant."

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I know it's a radical idea that you are not defined by your sexual preferences, but try to follow.

I sure hope no one defines himself only by his sexual orientation -- each of us -- straight or gay -- live a life with multiple roles, different identities, and lifestyles.

[Arrian]

Many folks who have decided that they are unhappy with their life as gay men and women have found success in marrying someone of the opposite sex. Now I know that everyone here is going to condemn living with someone that you don't love, and I agree. However, life is funny. Folks can and do fall in love despite their old desires.

So we're back to "conversions." Hey, if people do that and are happy, good for them. But again, what has this to do with disallowing gay marriage? Do you think that not allowing gays to marry will result in more of them saying "well, geeze, society really thinks we're wierdos... maybe we should go straight?" Seriously, do you think that??

Your solution to this mess is gay marriage.

Wrong. I argue that a side benifit of gay marriage could be helping with the STD problem. But that's not why I support it. Again, it's a rights thing to me.

The type of relationship that I have described above, would that work for most marriages?

Strawman. There is no evidence that gays who marry are any more promiscuous than straights who marry. Like I said, the data set simply doesn't exist. Further, it's not like heterosexuals are all true to their vows, Ben.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

The study is based on the health records of young Dutch homosexuals by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service and published in the May issue of the journal AIDS. It also found that men in homosexual relationships have an average of eight partners a year outside their main partnership, adding more evidence to the "stereotype" that homosexuals tend to be promiscuous.

Several things jump out at me. One: young dutch homosexuals. How young? How many (sample size)? I mean, if you did a study of hetero college kids in the U.S., I think you might draw a similar conclusion (they're a bunch of sex fiends!).

As for the 8 partners/year number... same data set, or another? That does sound high... but again, where is the comparison data (young dutch heteros)?

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Okay, so you really don't believe that being gay has anything to do with freedom of conscience. Glad to hear.

So why then should folks be required to recognise gay marriage? Upon what basis is it wrong for people to discriminate?

You STILL don't get my point! It would be wrong to justify discrimination against gays even given the fallacious claim that sexual orientation is a choice because in that hypothetical situation, conscience WOULD come into play.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We do that all the time. If a person chooses not to go to war and fight, do we give them veteran's benefits? No. If a person chooses not to have kids, do we give them a stipend to raise kids?

Is that not discrimination against people for the choices that they make?

If you are going to base the argument on a person's identity, then you have to come up with a concrete definition based upon physical reality.

This is what all the other groups have to do in order to receive assistance, in defining what constitutes a disability.

If we can simple 'out' ourselves then being gay is most definitely a conscious choice, and thus falls under freedom of conscience, with conversion and the whole lot becoming applicable.

Since when is identity exclusively something of a physical trait??

What religion one belongs to is part of a person's identity yet, that is not a physical trait. We are not certain yet, as to how exactly sexual orientation develops but evidence gathered so far, has indicated that it is certainly not a choice. But depending on what will be finally established, maybe sexual orientation will come to be seen as having some biological/genetic trait.

And about raising kids in your quote above -- if a gay couple chooses to become parents, they certainly deserve equal legal protection and benefits that go with raising children.