SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[David Floyd]

No, because it would merely have affirmed what I believed before I became Christian. So at no point would it have changed my beliefs.

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

If the Bible supported gay marriage, you would as well, because you would be keeping your pre-Christian opinion.

However, the Bible doesn't support gay marriage. You also, by your own admission, NO LONGER support gay marriage, but you did BEFORE you were a Christian.

Your beliefs changed on this matter once you became a Christian. Your beliefs changed because of an argument based on Christianity, NOT secularism - if the argument that changed your mind stood alone, and did not involve Christianity, then the argument would be irrelevant.

Further, you state that your belief right after becoming a Christian stayed the same because you felt that gay marriage would help reduce sin. This opinion changed - as near as I can tell - because you were persuaded otherwise.

So, you oppose gay marriage (and homosexuality in general) primarily because of your religious beliefs. The Bible condemns homosexuality, and so do you. The Bible does not provide for gay marriage, and neither do you. I think we have adequately established connections for the three previous sentences.

I'm simply interested in your motivations, and I think my interest has been satisfied. By the way, I don't understand why you didn't simply answer "yes" - just because your opinion is based upon your religious doesn't, on its own, make you wrong, and it doesn't make you a bad person. On the contrary, I would respect you for coming out and saying that you oppose homosexuality and gay marriage because of your Christianity.

Then, we could start a new line of debate - several lines, actually.

[David Floyd]

BK,

Great! Your timeline much more concisely says the same thing as my previous post. Your motivation for opposing gay marriage is religious in nature, not secular. Your arguments about "the good of society" and such are a smokescreen.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It doesn't nor is this the issue. Fez can sleep with as many people as he desires, and the law will not prosecute him.

Ummm... I don't sleep around and don't try to state it as such. I am not anymore inclined to even if I was heterosexual.

Fez, the argument for family members has been defended on this forum. So Incest and polygamy are valid arguments to bring up when regarding homosexual marriage.

The argument for family members is invalid, as is polygamy. In fact those arguments are totally irrelevant to this discussion on gay marriage, as gay marriage is between two non-related human beings.

By allowing the one, and believing that the state has no right to bar people who love each other from marrying, you cannot prevent either polygamy, or incest.

moronic statement. A homosexual relationship is actually quite similar to a heterosexual one when considering who is involved. Two non related human beings. Not three or more, and not related either. So your argument is pretty bogus.

Homosexuality is sinful. Homosexuality hurts the participants. Therefore, one ought to reduce the sin for their benefit.

And how does it hurt the person? How does it hurt me? How does it numb nuts? It doesn't.

[David Floyd]

moronic statement. A homosexual relationship is actually quite similar to a heterosexual one when considering who is involved. Two non related human beings. Not three or more, and not related either. So your argument is pretty bogus.

Actually, Fez, BK is right here. Polygamy and incest should both be allowed, along the same lines any other relationship is allowed - consenting adults.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Actually, Fez, BK is right here. Polygamy and incest should both be allowed, along the same lines any other relationship is allowed - consenting adults.

I didn't say that. BK is wrong as polygamy and incest are totally irrelevant to this discussion. You are wrong too. Homosexual relationships are between two unrelated human beings who happen to be the same sex. While heterosexual relationships are between two unrelated human beings who happen to be the opposite sex. I do not see how anybody could compare either with polygamy or incestous relationships, as both polygamy and incest are wrong.

[David Floyd]

I do not see how anybody could compare either with polygamy or incestous relationships, as both polygamy and incest are wrong.

You aren't furthering your cause by posting stuff like that. If you believe the government can and should restrict incest and polygamy between consenting adults, then you have no leg to stand on when you assert that the government should not restrict homosexuality/gay marriage.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by David Floyd


You aren't furthering your cause by posting stuff like that. If you believe the government can and should restrict incest and polygamy between consenting adults, then you have no leg to stand on when you assert that the government should not restrict homosexuality/gay marriage.

Well as I have morals and you don't, I don't see how you can possibly correlate homosexuality with incest and polygamy. Why the **** should the government restrict homosexuality when it is between two consenting non-related adults? Incest and polygamy is just wrong. I don't see how these bullshit statements can further your cause. How the hell do I have no leg to stand on when I say the government should not restrict homosexuality? How is homosexuality similar to incest or polygamy? IT IS NOT. So get that in your thick head.

[David Floyd]

Well as I have morals and you don't, I don't see how you can possibly correlate homosexuality with incest and polygamy.

No one is saying homosexuality is the same as polygamy. For one thing, homosexuality is a state of being, while polygamy is an action. For another, I'm talking about government regulation, and if you support government regulation of one but not the other, BK has a valid point - you're being inconsistent.

How the hell do I have no leg to stand on when I say the government should not restrict homosexuality?

You have no leg to stand on because you are being inconsistent. Either the government can restrict homosexuality along with polygamy and incest (all assuming consenting adults), or the government can restrict none of them. I'm not talking about what is "right" and "wrong" with regards to our own actions, I'm talking about government regulation. If you want the government to have the power to regulate individual immoral behavior, fine - you'll probably find plenty of people who believe homosexuality is immoral, especially in the US, and you'll definitely find government regulations against homosexuality.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No one is saying homosexuality is the same as polygamy. For one thing, homosexuality is a state of being, while polygamy is an action. For another, I'm talking about government regulation, and if you support government regulation of one but not the other, BK has a valid point - you're being inconsistent.

No I am not being inconsistent as homosexuality is in no way comparable to incest or polygamy. What the **** is wrong with you?

You have no leg to stand on because you are being inconsistent. Either the government can restrict homosexuality along with polygamy and incest (all assuming consenting adults),

Then the government should restrict heterosexuality while they are at it. You see why your argument is crap? It makes no sense because homosexuality is between two unrelated adults like heterosexuality. While incest is not and is immoral. Polygamy is also wrong.

If you want the government to have the power to regulate individual immoral behavior, fine - you'll probably find plenty of people who believe homosexuality is immoral, especially in the US, and you'll definitely find government regulations against homosexuality.

You are acting stupid again. I don't care what others think. Homosexuality is not in any way comparable to incest or polygamy. So even bringing up either is proving your irrelevance to this debate.

I already got into this crap before with somebody here. Anybody who is braindead enough to bring up incest or polygamy when discussing gay marriage shouldn't be using a computer.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First of all, I do not claim that just because I want to get married, the state ought to permit me to do so. What if I am already married to someone else? I do not want such right to be mine.

This is irrellevant.

You say polygamy isn't allowed to refute that the state shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on gender or sexual preference. I have never asserted that the government cannot discriminate in other ways.

Is what you are trying to say that polygamy is wrong because of the gender or sexual preference of the parties involved? (ie. X males shouldn't marry Y females, but other combinations of more than 2 parties are acceptable)

I doubt it, which is why I say this is irrellevant.

Secondly, I have shown that on average, you can expect completely different results from marriage. When a man and woman get married, in the vast majority of cases, both the man and woman are better off. Statistics show the opposite for gay couples. Why should we permit a union that will harm them? Why should we consign them to unhappiness?

Yah, all those studies done about gay marriages. How many gay couples have been married? How long have they beem married. Impressive database there.

I'd argue that the success of a marriage is obviously not an issue when the state allows marriage in Las Vegas between two intoxicated individuals who most likely will get divorced in the morning. Not to mention that 50% of all marriages in the country end in divorce.

Same difference. Marriage is not a fundamental right.

I'd guess you don't feel a job isn't a fundamental right either? (I think given your reasoning that "it requires more than one person" it would be un-fundamental) Should the government therefore be able to discriminate against potential job cannidates based on gender or sexual preference?

Thank you. So now can we dispose of that trope that the conservatives are forcing their religious beliefs on others? The state and church are seperated.

Your logic is terrible. Just because I said the state should not force religious groups or persons into preforming wedding ceremonies for gay couples does not equate to the same thing as saying conservatives are not trying to force their religious beliefs onto others! I don't think I've seen such a fallacious leap of logic on this forum before. And that is saying a lot!

I didn't make the assertion that conservatives are forcing their religious beliefs onto others. I can only assume (and hope) you were thinking of someone else's post while responding to me.

So the state ought to allow everyone to do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences to other people? I believe we call such a state, Anarchy.

I suppose I deserve that for not qualifying my statement so that you couldn't twist it to that extreme. How about: "What they will, while not infringing on the rights of others." Is that more suitable? It's the context of the statement you quoted if you hadn't cut off the first half of the sentence to refute it... Of course now you can just chop off the last part of that sentence to do the same thing.

It's a no win situation if we don't at least require the quoting of a complete thought.

No, because again, you are denying a person's fundamental freedoms in enslaving them. Secondly, I would hardly suggest to someone who has suffered under slavery that the current issue has anything comparable to slavery. I would not devalue their suffering.

I am certainly not comparing slavery to being denied the right to marry, but using the issue of slavery to illustrate an extreme case of being denied a right.

From other posts you've made, you view a fundamental right as one which doesn't require more than one person, right? Does that mean you don't believe that procreating is a fundamental right?

Again, not all discrimination is a bad thing. There are good reasons why we discriminate, and marriage is one of these. It is in the best interests of society to limit marriage as one man and one woman.

Please post a study of the effects of gay marriage. I can't seem to find any.

You say there are valid reasons to discriminate. So are gender and sexual orientation valid reasons to discriminate?

Strawman. I argue that we do gay people a disservice, that the lifestyle hurts themselves.

I (and I'm sure you've heard of others) argue that religion hurts people and does them a disservice. Children are raised and brainwashed, guilted into following a certain lifestyle. Should we disallow practicing religion because of this, or should people be allowed to make choices about how to live their own lives* which someone else may not find optimal?

*In a manner which doesn't restrict or inhibit the rights of others around them

Again, I do show the harms to society, so I don't see why you keep insisting that I do not.

Because the only answer you give me is that you do show the harms to society. If you've stated them before, just humor me and go over them again ok? Provide a link?

Thank you. So the evidence I have provited, which is neither opinion, nor idle speculation ought to remain proper grounds to ban gay marriage.

The only thing I can think of that you are referencing is that British study you posted. To be honest, it's British, and they note the importance even in their findings of aquiring more data (like their own) from non-American studies. Why? Maybe because they realize there could be differences in social pressures rendering American studies less useful to them! This is about gay marriage in America, and so using a British study about British homosexuals doesn't seem as applicable.

Not to mention the fact that the findings failed to take into account the differences in social pressures gays face compared to their hetero counterparts. I'm not disputing their findings, it's actually pretty understandable that drug use is higher among a population segment that faces such a social stigma. But they don't mention that, no mention of what the same drug rates would be for a group that faces the same type of social stigma. If they had, that would be valuable data which would help differentiate between what percent of the drug use is 'gay' drug use caused by homosexuality and what is 'outcast' drug use caused by facing so much social unnacceptance of their lifestyle.

In short, there is no relevance given to the findings. It might be helpful if they further studied the psyche of the individuals, giving statistics for those who felt accepted by society vs those who felt rejected. Those with self esteem issues vs those without, ect.

As someone who has been through mental institutions, and had many friends in similar situations, I know first hand that feeling outcast leads to deviant behavior. I can't completely sympathize with what a homosexual in a non-acceptive or hostile environment goes though, but can imagine it is a lot the same thing. Everyone looks down their nose at you (and in many cases you look down on yourself due to social conditioning), your self esteem lowers, and that is one of the widely known avenues to drug use. Low self esteem.

Yet your 'definitive' study didn't even mention that fact... and wasn't about gay couples in marriages either! Perhaps the cure to all these additional problems homosexuals face is allowing them to get married!*

*Hyperbole, hopefully to prove the point that the study doesn't actually prove anything useful to this debate.

Yes it is. It is a benefit society recieves from marriage, that ought to be preserved and encouraged.

Ok, if you can't see that procreation results in childbirth... not marriage... I'll stop harping on it (well, maybe once more further down ). Lost cause.

Well, isn't that what the state says about Islamic terrorists?

No, the state doesn't restrict the right for Muslims to practice their religion. If you've forgotten the context, it was this question:

"If I were to drag up some statistic about the correlation between believing in a deity of some sort and terrorism, would that be a valid argument against allowing people to practice their religion?"

You'll note that I wasn't asking if the state makes a correllation between religion and terrorism. Just if it would be a valid argument against allowing people to practice their religion.

An unconsummated marriage remains grounds for divorce to the denied partner. So no go.

You can't differentiate in any way between procreation and marriage, can you? This is very funny. Here is a definition for you, so you can use the term consummated properly:

con·sum·mate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kns-mt)
tr.v. con·sum·mat·ed, con·sum·mat·ing, con·sum·mates

1. a. To bring to completion or fruition; conclude: consummate a business transaction.
b. To realize or achieve; fulfill: a dream that was finally consummated with the publication of her first book.

2. a. To complete (a marriage) with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony.
b. To fulfill (a sexual desire or attraction) especially by intercourse.

As you can see, 2a doesn't mention that the intercourse has to result in impregnation. It doesn't state it has to be heterosexual. It doesn't mention a man and a woman. Just sexual intercourse after the ceremony. I think even gay couples can handle that.

If a gay marriage is not consummated... well then it's grounds for a divorce, just like I said before. Infertility (known to the other partner at the time of wedding) is not grounds for divorce, so this statement is false:

Then there is no gay marriage that would not also be grounds for divorce.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

They lack any legal leg to stand on in that arguement given the actions they have taken.

Even if SF is trounced in court, it's still MISSION ACCOMPLISHED for the very reason Boris described: it got all those beaming gay newlyweds befores the eyes of the nation. They saw real people in love, real people who just wanted to marry.

People were confronted - perhaps many for the first time - with the reality, the human reality, of what it is to deny someone the right to marry.

Although I see little hope for success in court, I am sure that the three thousand marriages in San Francisco will be somewhere next to the March on Selma in the history books. It will be a huge milestone in the debate, maybe even the turning point.

Mayor Gavin Newsome!

[Ben Kenobi]

David:

However, the Bible doesn't support gay marriage. You also, by your own admission, NO LONGER support gay marriage, but you did BEFORE you were a Christian.

True.

Your beliefs changed on this matter once you became a Christian. Your beliefs changed because of an argument based on Christianity, NOT secularism - if the argument that changed your mind stood alone, and did not involve Christianity, then the argument would be irrelevant.

No. My beliefs still supported gay marriage, even though I believed homosexuality to be a sin. I based my argument on the fact that many of the problems of the homosexual lifestyle could be traced to promiscuity. Thus, by encouraging marriage for gays, one could reduce the sin, in having them form long term relationships rather than short term ones.

This opinion changed - as near as I can tell - because you were persuaded otherwise.

Yeah, by secular arguments. The folks at NARTH to be more precise.

So, you oppose gay marriage (and homosexuality in general)

Be careful here. My opposition to homosexuality can be traced to Christianity. My opposition to gay marriage cannot.

On the contrary, I would respect you for coming out and saying that you oppose homosexuality and gay marriage because of your Christianity.

I have no qualms by saying that Christianity provides ample motivations, but I want to talk more about those secular arguments, rather than the religious ones.

You give the message your audience will listen to, the arguments that will be more difficult to dismiss. I have no qualms against quoting Corinthians, but each argument has its place.

It would be a lie for me to say that my religious beliefs have wholly shaped my position on homosexuality, and gay marriage, since the secular arguments that homosexuality is a choice, and that it is a harmful lifestyle have had a huge influence.

[quote]
Your arguments about "the good of society" and such are a smokescreen.
[quote]

No, they come later into the process. Brevity kept my points short, to address your point. Once I properly understood the Christian affirmation of marriage, I began to look for some of the benefits to society of marriage.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

And what right are they denied? They can marry a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

Wow, this is the FIFTH time I have seen you make this ridiculous argument. Since you didn't respond last time I replied, I'm sure you'll forgive me for simply pasting below the reply I wrote last time.

Originally posted by mindseye



Are you really dragging that dead thing around here again? This is the fourth time I've seen you field this argument. Each time previously, the problem with your reasoning was shown, yet you keep repeating it in other threads, as if repitition alone could patch up your leaky logic.

Look, if you want to debate around here, that's great, welcome. But if your arguments are fairly trounced, simply repeating them in thread after thread as if you didn't know better demonstrates only that you are a crank, wasting our time, or both.

When you notice fewer and fewer people taking the time to point out yet again the problems with the same arguments, you can take this as evidence not of the efficacy of your arguments, but of the Ignore List.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ummm... I don't sleep around and don't try to state it as such. I am not anymore inclined to even if I was heterosexual.

Conditional verb, could. You could sleep around as much as you like, and the law would not care.

You having trouble with English? Would you prefer Spanish?

The argument for family members is invalid, as is polygamy. In fact those arguments are totally irrelevant to this discussion on gay marriage, as gay marriage is between two non-related human beings.

But when you start to dig into the question of why do we bar polygamy, and why do we bar incest, then they do come into play. It can't be all that bogus when someone who disagrees with me on gay marriage, agrees with me on this point.

And how does it hurt the person? How does it hurt me? How does it numb nuts? It doesn't.

My nuts are quite warm right now.

I'm just stating beliefs without providing justifications for them. You can find the justification for that point throughout the thread. Go look, Fez.

[Ben Kenobi]

And what right are they denied? They can marry a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

Sure. There is no law preventing them from marrying a nice man if they are a woman, or a nice woman, if they are a man.

That's the point there, that seems pretty solid for all your refutations you have provided.

I deny that this argument has been trounced, PWNED or anything of the sort. Hence, repetition of a point increases my consistency. And consistency is a virtue.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Conditional verb, could. You could sleep around as much as you like, and the law would not care.

But I don't.

You having trouble with English? Would you prefer Spanish?

Do you have a problem with common sense? Or is something messed up in your head? You idiot, if I had trouble with english I wouldn't be doing well in college.

But when you start to dig into the question of why do we bar polygamy, and why do we bar incest, then they do come into play. It can't be all that bogus when someone who disagrees with me on gay marriage, agrees with me on this point.

Incest and Polygamy are not relevant to this debate so can you please move on.

[Giancarlo]

And why the hell should I marry somebody of the opposite sex? What good would that do Ben?

[Ben Kenobi]

You say polygamy isn't allowed to refute that the state shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on gender or sexual preference. I have never asserted that the government cannot discriminate in other ways.

Is what you are trying to say that polygamy is wrong because of the gender or sexual preference of the parties involved? (ie. X males shouldn't marry Y females, but other combinations of more than 2 parties are acceptable)

No. It is entirely relevant to the point that David Floyd is making that the state can restrict marriage, because the state creates marriage rights. No state, no civil marriage.

Yah, all those studies done about gay marriages. How many gay couples have been married? How long have they beem married. Impressive database there.

Studies are done based on the cohabiting couples, since marriage data is not available. And the numbers are not good.

I'd argue that the success of a marriage is obviously not an issue when the state allows marriage in Las Vegas between two intoxicated individuals who most likely will get divorced in the morning. Not to mention that 50% of all marriages in the country end in divorce.

Agreed. Let's do away with both quickie Vegas marriages, and with gay marriage. Both fall short of the ideal.

I'd guess you don't feel a job isn't a fundamental right either?

Yep. No one has a fundamental right to a job. Not hard.

Should the government therefore be able to discriminate against potential job cannidates based on gender or sexual preference?

Actually, this is not true. One can discriminate if it can be shown that this would adversely affect the job performance. The Boy Scouts are not required to hire gay men, and do have a right to screen potential employees.

Most jobs should not care what your preferences are, so they should not be an issue.

Your logic is terrible.

No. The church and the state are seperated. I hate that trope that whenever a Conservative stands up for what he believes, liberals tar and feather him as forcing his beliefs on others. Conservatives could care less if you disagree with them. It's always liberals who whinge about forcing opinions on other people.

I didn't make the assertion that conservatives are forcing their religious beliefs onto others.

Yep, just firing a shot at that trope, because your point affirms the seperation of the church and state. I could have been clearer that the point was not directly related to you, but some of the other posts. Sorry.

What they will, while not infringing on the rights of others.

Much better. Still doesn't get you all the way to gay marriage though. The state has to intervene, in order to recognise the marriage. So you need some kind of positive argument for them to do so.

I am certainly not comparing slavery to being denied the right to marry, but using the issue of slavery to illustrate an extreme case of being denied a right.

Distinction without a difference. You are making an analogy.

From other posts you've made, you view a fundamental right as one which doesn't require more than one person, right? Does that mean you don't believe that procreating is a fundamental right?

Yes.

Please post a study of the effects of gay marriage. I can't seem to find any.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

General effects,

The researchers report a high rate of battering within the context of intimate homosexual partnerships, with 39% of those studied reporting at least one type of battering by a partner over the last five years.

In contrast, only about 7.7% of heterosexual men of all ages report physical or sexual partner abuse during their entire lifetimes. (Lifetime rates of abuse are generally higher than those within a five-year period.)

http://www.narth.com/docs/domestic.html

Battering rates,

that's just for starters.

Children are raised and brainwashed, guilted into following a certain lifestyle.

Are they brainwashed? I would contend this assertion, because all religions allow their members to leave them voluntarily. Cults are a different matter, in that they do not, and prevent their members from leaving through a variety of methods.

Should we disallow practicing religion because of this, or should people be allowed to make choices about how to live their own lives which someone else may not find optimal?

I think that if a cult bars someone from leaving, then they are impacting the lives of others, and infringing on their freedoms. They should be disallowed and discouraged.

note the importance even in their findings of aquiring more data (like their own) from non-American studies. Why?

All studies are interested in widening scope. Fact of life.

so using a British study about British homosexuals doesn't seem as applicable.

True, but it is much better than pure conjecture, to have some hard data.

[
Not to mention the fact that the findings failed to take into account the differences in social pressures gays face compared to their hetero counterparts.

They account for these differences. Sorry, but this is an old trope that has come up every time, regardless of the study and the source that I cite. It's getting tiresome.

a population segment that faces such a social stigma

Even in San Francisco, you will see these effects.

[quiote]
In short, there is no relevance given to the findings.
[/quote]

Have a look at my other sources. They are relevant regardless of old tropes.

that feeling outcast leads to deviant behavior.

Interesting. So you would characterise homosexuality as deviant behavior.

Lacking evidence for gay marriage, and looking at the rates for relationships, I would not be as optimistic as you are.

"If I were to drag up some statistic about the correlation between believing in a deity of some sort and terrorism, would that be a valid argument against allowing people to practice their religion?"

Again, if it could be shown that the beliefs encourage terrorism, then that would be a valid argument. However, not even Islam espouses terror, and not all Islamic believers support terror.

quote:
An unconsummated marriage remains grounds for divorce to the denied partner. So no go.

2. a. To complete (a marriage) with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony.
b. To fulfill (a sexual desire or attraction) especially by intercourse.

Stop for a minute. Sexual intercourse. The penetration of the vagina by the penis.

This is precisely my point. Homosexuals cannot consummate their relationships.

[Ben Kenobi]

But I don't.

I never said you did. Conditional verb.

Incest and Polygamy are not relevant to this debate so can you please move on.

Two people of differing opinions say they are relevant. Deal with the points.

And why the hell should I marry somebody of the opposite sex? What good would that do Ben?

So don't get married then.

[Giancarlo]

Two people of differing opinions are mistaken.

Don't get married? I don't think so.

[Ben Kenobi]

Two people of differing opinions are mistaken.

Floyd and I never agree.

Therefore, the topics in which we would agree, we're more likely to be right, than just your opinion.

[Boris Godunov]

Oh lord, BK now throws out NARTH...typical.

Hey, let's talk about how the skewed the conclusions of that study, shall we?

Results. Prevalence estimates were 34% for psychological/symbolic battering, 22% for physical battering, and 5% for sexual battering. The strongest demographic correlate independently associated with all forms of battering was age 40 or younger, whereas education and HIV serostatus were associated with physical and psychological/symbolic violence.

Now, if you would take a look at statistics for female abuse by male spouses, you'd find that these numbers are about the same--a full quarter of women say they have been physically battered in a relationship. Comparing gay men in relationships with men to straight men in relationships with women is deceptive, since women are by and large not batterers, but men are.

The other thing is that legalizing marriage is exactly the kind of thing that could HELP these rates go down, as the very study cited here concluded:

Implications and Future Directions
Because judicial, legislative, and public health systems do not recognize or are not aware of intimate partner abuse among MSM, serious social and structural changes are needed. To respond to this very serious public health problem, we need to develop and support shelters for battered MSM, educate and train law enforcement personnel about battering among MSM and how to respond to it, and expand preventive and clinical care7–10,14,29 for these men. A full range of medical and domestic violence services for MSM, particularly services targeting MSM aged 40 years or younger, are needed. Health professionals need to be able to appropriately screen, treat, and screen, treat, or recommend services for intimate partner abuse. Our society needs to understand that men are victims as well as perpetrators of violence.9,10 Equally intensive and multilayered public health efforts are also needed to intervene with and serve the perpetrators of violence among MSM. Surveillance, prevention, and intervention research on intimate partner abuse among MSM has not been well conducted. Sorely needed are theory-driven, longitudinal, mixed methodological and well-controlled studies that systematically elucidate the etiology, maintenance, context, and trajectories of partner violence among MSM.29 These studies could also help to identify how intimate partner abuse among MSM is similar to, and different from, such abuse among lesbians and heterosexual women. Finally, "best practices" research could be conducted to identify which treatment approaches work best to reduce the burden of same-gender battering among these men.

The problem isn't some inherent part of homosexuality that causes violence, it's that there does not exist the legal, social and medical resources as of yet to handle the problem.

NARTH advocates reparative therapy, and every major medical, psychiatric and psychological association agrees that reparative therapy is not only a crock, it's psychologically damaging to the people who try to undergo it. So citing them as some sort of source on what's good and bad for gays is pretty damned funny.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
Even if SF is trounced in court, it's still MISSION ACCOMPLISHED for the very reason Boris described

Good for them. However thier actions have made the issue secondary to the precedent they set and it keeps me from wishing the sucess in the arena thier challenge should have been waged in to begin with.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Sure. There is no law preventing them from marrying a nice man if they are a woman, or a nice woman, if they are a man.

That's the point there, that seems pretty solid for all your refutations you have provided.

I deny that this argument has been trounced, PWNED or anything of the sort. Hence, repetition of a point increases my consistency. And consistency is a virtue.

You never stop distorting the argument, do you??

The issue that we have is not that we're denied the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, but that we are denied the right to marry someone of the same gender.

[Ned]

David Floyd, you discount the voluntary/involuntary nature of homosexuality as being significant in the issue at had. I disagree. It is critical.

I come down on the side that homosexuality is involuntary. I do so without scientific proof, which I think we will find eventually. I base my position on this primarily on the apparent fact that homosexuality appears at an early age and appears to be persistent.

[Ned]

David Floyd, you discount the voluntary/involuntary nature of homosexuality as being significant in the issue at had. I disagree. It is critical.

I come down on the side that homosexuality is involuntary. I do so without scientific proof, which I think we will find eventually. I base my position on this primarily on the apparent fact that homosexuality appears at an early age and appears to be persistent.

[Ned]

David Floyd, you discount the voluntary/involuntary nature of homosexuality as being significant in the issue at had. I disagree. It is critical.

I come down on the side that homosexuality is involuntary. I do so without scientific proof, which I think we will find eventually. I base my position on this primarily on the apparent fact that homosexuality appears at an early age and appears to be persistent.

[chequita guevara]

Given the crap most gays have to deal with, no one in their right mind would choose to be gay. Hell, some people kill themselves rather than deal with being gay. For social animals like humans, disapproval is a very strong motivator.

That said, I think it is irrelevent whether homosexuality is a choice or not. There is nothing wrong with being gay. Therefore, being gay should not be a reason to be punished.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Given the crap most gays have to deal with, no one in their right mind would choose to be gay. Hell, some people kill themselves rather than deal with being gay. For social animals like humans, disapproval is a very strong motivator.

That said, I think it is irrelevent whether homosexuality is a choice or not. There is nothing wrong with being gay. Therefore, being gay should not be a reason to be punished.

Ah, but Che, the issue is critical if one is being denied rights bases on STATUS.

[MrBaggins]

Which they obviously are... like Taxation and health benefits.

I'd like to see ANY and EVERY social benefit conferred to straight married couples, also conferred to Gay couples in some form of civil union.

Thus gay couples would file for the same tax status as married couples, be able to apply their health insurance to their partner, and or be guaranteed the same health rights (visiting and making health decisions for their partner in hospital, for instance.)

If you confine marriage to different genders as in a religious sense, I see thats fine... Gays are used to be labelled as being different...

but you then have to give gay couples every advantage a male-female couple have, if you want to avoid discrimination.

Of course, some here might want to discriminate against gays, socially... by having them paying more tax, etc... but whats your reasoning for doing so?