SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[Ben Kenobi]

And heterosexuals have that "commitment"? Again look at the divorce rate.

Still only 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and remember, those who divorce, are more likely to divorce again. So the number of couples that actually divorce will be less than 50%.

Rather than eliminate the myth, their research confirmed it. After much searching, they were able to locate only 156 couples in lasting relationships. The study also revealed that only 7 couples had actually maintained sexual fidelity and none of the seven had been together more than 5 years.

So can you say the same for heterosexuals, that you have a rate of 95% of them breaking up before a five year period?

95% is much higher than 50%, and that 50% is the percentage of marriages that last until death do you part. Not bad by comparison.

Relevance?

Very relevant. Look at all the demands to 'validate our relationships.'

What we have is this: Two loving human beings who happen to be of the same gender, who love each other just as much as a man and woman in a heterosexual relationship.

So much, that you need a little nookie on the side to satisfy your desires? Can't be all that cracked up.

Uncorrobated statement. No evidence. There is no evidence.. the large body of "evidence" he claims is mere arbitration.

He goes on to detail his evidence.

Not adequate to make sweeping statements. Also says nothing of heterosexual marriages, which have a 50% divorce rate.

They did 156 because they couldn't find any others.

Again sweeping and lacking in evidence.

Introduction to his later point.

And this does not happen rampantly in heterosexual couples?

No. Most of the marriages will not abide by infidelity. Homosexuality revels in the openness of their relationship. Very different attitudes.

Great. Polls. What is that supposed to prove? I also seen other polls showing the exact opposite.

Well then. Source.

This is uncorrobated in the least...

Uncorroborated? Last refuge, of a poor argument.

I don't even want to reply to the rest of this crap.. where did you get this bullshit from? NARTH?

No, from the folks in Massachusetts who argue against gay marriage in the state. They seem to be very fair in citing a variety of sources, including ones from gay magazines, and not from NARTH.

[Ben Kenobi]

Fez couldn't stomach my article, so let's see how well I fare.


MYTH #1: HOMOSEXUALS DON'T WANT ENDURING RELATIONSHIPS AND CAN'T ACHIEVE THEM ANYWAY.

Homosexuals are often depicted as unhappy individuals who are unsuccessful in developing enduring same-sex ties. Drifting from one sexual liason to another, they end up old and alone. Existing data sharply counter this stereotype.

Alright. Let's see the evidence.

Motivations, I won't question. Actions are another matter. Words speak less than deeds.

Other studies have investigated the extent to which lesbians and gay men are successful in establishing intimate relationships.

WTF is an 'intimate relationship?' No definition is given.

40% and 60% of the men questioned were currently involved in a steady relationship

Same. 'Steady relationship' can mean anything.

In studies of lesbians, between 45% and 80% of women surveyed were currently in a steady relationship.

45-80%? Yeah, real accurate. Again, 'steady' relationships can mean whatever you want them to mean.

next question concerns the longevity of these partnerships.

Alright. Bring it on!

Lacking marriage records and representative samples, it is hard to make judgements about how long "typical" homosexual relationships last.

The few studies that have included older gay men and lesbians have found that relationships lasting twenty years or longer are not uncommon

Not uncommon? What does that mean? They found 1?

Secondly, they get to throw out the young relationships. What if we only got to count all the marriages that lasted past the age of 45? I would bet, you would see more than 50% of those marriages last until death do you part.

The basic point of all these studies to draw from is that gay and lesbian relationships are very much a reality in contemporary life.

And they don't address the point of longevity!


MYTH #2: GAY RELATIONSHIPS ARE UNHAPPY, ABNORMAL, AND DYS- FUNCTIONAL.

standard measures of relationship satisfaction, dyadic adjustment, or love.

Squishy standard to measure relationships, but let's see their conclusions.

Illustrative of this research is a study conducted by Susan Cochran & Letitia Anne Peplau (1980) that selected matched samples of 50 lesbians, 50 gay men, 50 heterosexual men, and 50 heterosexual women--all currently involved in "romantic/sexual relationships".

Fair enough, let's see the meat and potatoes.

Among this sample of young adults, about 60% said they were "in love" with their partners; most of the rest indicated they were "uncertain". On Rubin's standardized Love and Liking Scales, lesbians and gay men generally reported very positive feelings for their partners. Lesbians and gay men also rated their current relationships as highly satisfying and very close. No significant differences were found among lesbians, gay men, and heterosexuals on any of these measures of relationship satisfaction.

So what does that tell us? They are good at telling us what they want us to hear?

Homosexual and heterosexual couples who are matched on age and other relevant background characteristics

Ah. So you get to throw out all those happily married heterosexuals, because they bias the results. I'll bet if you included them, you would get a better picture of heterosexuals.

Here is what they should do.

1. Get a representative sample of heterosexuals

2. Get a representative sample of homosexuals

Compare the average of 1 with 2, not adjusting for relationship length.

homosexual couples are not necessarily any more prone to relationship dissatisfaction and difficulties than are heterosexuals.

Only after you toss out all the heterosexuals who have been married for a long time.

MYTH #3: "HUSBAND" AND "WIFE" ROLES ARE UNIVERSAL IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS.

Ah. Number three is a myth. I agree. Husband and wives are roles in not all intimate relationships. Just heterosexual ones. The fact that you do not see husband and wife roles is to be expected, because there are concrete differences between genders. Two men, are going to be like two men, and not two women.

Thank you for confirming my point, Fez.

MYTH #4: GAYS AND LESBIANS HAVE IMPOVERISHED SOCIAL SUPPORT NETWORKS.

It is certainly true that in a homophobic society, gays and lesbians may suffer from social alienation and estrangement.

Okay, glad to know they admit this.

The psychological stress that results from social recognition and stigma should nonetheless not be minimized.

Ah, so because society disapproves of them, that results in all their troubles. Gosh, I think we've heard this argument before, haven't we?

She compared the social support experiences of 50 lesbians and 50 heterosexual women. All women were currently in a primary relationship and were matched for age, education, length of their relationship.

None had children in their household.

50 women without children? That's going to bias your sample, once again. The heterosexual women with children are going to be married, and have better social nets, then the women who don't.

So again, you are not comparing a representative sample of heterosexual women.

Overall, results seemed to suggest that the presence of children may increase the similarity in social support experiences of lesbian and heterosexual women.

Yep, your source agrees with me. Because more heterosexual women, than lesbians have children, they generally have better social networks then lesbians, which actually validates the so-called myth.


Wow!

Unlike Fez I actually read through the entire article he cited!

[Ben Kenobi]

Men are, by and large, the spouse likely to abusive.

I dispute that claim. There are many abusive women.

One very important thing to keep in mind is that male battering by females is greatly underreported, largely due to the humiliation based on stereotyped gender roles.

Thank you for proving my point, Boris.

And another thing is that from a size perspective, women just aren't physically as able to batter men as they are other women.

Okay. So because they are the same size, they don't batter? Ignores my point.

Also, such battering situations often involve the inability to deal with the frustration and burdens of living in a homophobic society as well.

Wow! So the society is to blame for the tensions within the relationship as well? What cannot be blamed on a homophobic society?

because they don’t have as much support from family or friends during these rough times.

So much for no difference in social networks, as Fez claims. Glad to see you refuting his point.

Using this as some sort of reason to not allow gay marriage is, in fact, pulling a Catch-22 argument.

No. Not at all. A homophobic society is merely the catch-all for all the problems of homosexual relationships?

Promiscuity? It's the repression of society that prevents us from forming long-term relationships. Endemic battering among lesbians? Gotta be the frusterations of society.

Maybe it has something to do with the relationships themselves, rather than simply blaming all your troubles on the world around them? Ever think of that Boris?

Not did I say it did, I said that it called for a more legal support and acknowledgement of gay relationships, which I believe marriage will help accomplish.

No. Read again. They acknowledge support not for the relationships, but for the people themselves.

Psychiatrists and psychoanalysts have studied the results, as in homosexuals who have undergone the therapy and become emotional wrecks because of their failures to change their ways.

Show me then.

But I'm glad to see you throw out an inference of the old conspiracy chestnut

No, I never did claim a conspiracy? Do I blame anyone for delisting the procedure? I simply say that because they assume that homosexuality is not a disorder, therefore, such therapy can only cause problems. You assume what we are trying to prove.

to delist homosexuality as a disorder. It was delisted because it was studied and shown not to be a disorder, not because of political pressure from then non-existant gay lobbying groups.

Care to stand by that statement? Where's the evidence that homosexuality ought not to be considered a disorder?

Are you serious? Ask any psychologist or psychiatrist about the potential harm of treating something that isn't a disorder as if it is one.

At the request of the patient? I cannot see how giving the patient the treatment he requests would hurt him.

Why don't you try being a mental health professional before making such ridiculous statements?

So are you a mental health professional, Boris?

Precisely. The problem is from people not wanting accept their natures and the stress that is created fighting against it.

So I should bang my boss against her will because that would relieve my tension?

First, since you're not gay, the notion you could just know what will and won't make a gay person happy is laughable. You don't have a clue.

And you are a gay man presumably happy with the lifestyle, so what would you know about someone who does not like these desires?

Second, show me and study that reparative therapy works. Not anecdotal evidence, but a statistical one that shows conversion therapy success rates.

I can't do that if it isn't considered a medical procedure, and any psychiatrist who performs them is automatically expelled from the college, if he does help someone.

I can give you testimonies of people who have been helped by the therapies, but you know as well as I do, that they do not publish success rates.

Perhaps if psychiatrists were permitted to investigate the procedure, I could satisfy your demands of conversion rates.

As it is, there are people who are not happy, and many who are being helped.

Why don't conversion therapy groups like Exodus and NARTH publish any statistics on their successful rate of conversions, Ben?

I don't know. Go ask them. I don't work for either.

Who are the two founders of Exodus, and what are they doing now, Ben? What do they say about Exodus now, Ben?

You seem to know, so why don't you tell us?

Where was John Paulik, the supposedly cured homo who was splashed across the country in newspaper ads, found in Baltimore after that campaign?

What does it mean to be cured? Cured of your desires? No, I doubt they ever go away. People are weak Boris, and they backslide.

You've never even undergone Reparative Therapy, yet you claim it works?

Have you? Then don't argue personal experience.

It preys upon the minds of people and convinces them to pretend to be something they are not.

So who one is is who one shags? People's identities ought not to be tied up solely in their sexual activities.

This eventually leads to a crushing of their self-esteem when they fail to change their natures. It is a horrible thing, and anyone who advocates it is advocating psychological abuse of homosexuals.

If they desire the change? I cannot see forbidding anyone who wants to change the therapy without some hard evidence that it does the outrageous things you claim.

[Asher]

1) Homosexuality is not a choice
2) Homosexuals in love and under the oath of marriage does not affect you
3) Homosexuals earn more on average than straights, and the US favors people with higher incomes -- bend over, Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

1) Homosexuality is not a choice

Sure it is. Don't you love someone by choosing them?

2) Homosexuals in love and under the oath of marriage does not affect you

Altering marriage affects the definition for everyone who gets married.

3) Homosexuals earn more on average than straights, and the US favors people with higher incomes -- bend over, Ben.

All those dang women. Staying home and making babies lowering our average.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure it is. Don't you love someone by choosing them?

You seem to forget the critical word in sexuality. It's not loveuality...

But let's take your ridiculous comment and play with it. Do you choose to love your mother?

Altering marriage affects the definition for everyone who gets married.

How so? This boggles the mind of any rational person.

Man and woman meet. Man and woman fall in love. Man and woman marry.

At which point in this progression does the fact that their gay neighbors got married screw things up?

[Ben Kenobi]

got married screw things up?

You only said effect. You said nothing about messing everything up.

Much easier to prove an effect, then the whole structure collapsing.

As for choosing someone, yes, I would choose to love my mother. One can argue that you have a fiduciary duty, but duty is much different from love.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


You only said effect. You said nothing about messing everything up.

No no, I said "affect". Messing things up as in, changing for the worse -- what I thought was a clear implication by your post. Come on Ben, stop playing with semantics and get down to the meat of it all.

Much easier to prove an effect, then the whole structure collapsing.

You've done neither.

How does the gay couple nextdoor getting married affect a straight couple getting married?

As for choosing someone, yes, I would choose to love my mother. One can argue that you have a fiduciary duty, but duty is much different from love.

Others would argue that you would be rather shallow and unlearned if you honestly think loving somebody is as simple as choosing to love them.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm glad to see that effect affects you.

Others would argue that you would be rather shallow and unlearned if you honestly think loving somebody is as simple as choosing to love them.

Sure. Choosing not to love someone after you have loved them is different. All relationships start on the shallow end, and get much deeper afterwards.

Are you arguing that you have no say in who you love? I would hate to be your lover then. No free will at all.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm glad to see that effect affects you.

Sure. Choosing not to love someone after you have loved them is different. All relationships start on the shallow end, and get much deeper afterwards.

Are you arguing that you have no say in who you love? I would hate to be your lover then. No free will at all.

I do argue that. I believe love is beyond people just shrugging their shoulders and deciding "Nope, don't love you anymore..." on whim. Real love, that is.

Maybe you wouldn't understand, you're too pre-occupied in finding a woman with wide hips because you think marriages are only about pro-creation. You don't know what love is.

I'm starting to see how you have such a warped view on things now. Love is not something you proclaim whenever you see someone you want to have kids with, Ben...

But anyway, would you please stop ignoring three-quarters of every post because you get your ass owned? I would appreciate responses. I don't type them for fun.

[Ned]

There are reasons for laws against brothers and sisters getting married, first cousins getting married and nephews and nieces getting married to their respective aunts and uncles. Those reasons vanish in the case of homosexuals. Is there any reason, any reason at all, to deny a homosexual the right to marry close relatives?

[Giancarlo]

Sorry but how is incest relevant to any of this?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I dispute that claim. There are many abusive women.

You dispute that men are more likely to be abusive than women? I didn't say women weren't abusive at all, I said men were more likely to be so.

Your statistics prove the point enough, Ben! You cited that only 7% of heterosexual men are abused, but we know that a full quarter of women have been physically abused, with a third having psychological abuse! Are you refuting your own statistics now?

Thank you for proving my point, Boris.

Disengenuous word games are non-nos for Christians, aren't they? You know full well that this wasn't saying that abuse levels are the same, merely that they are higher than reported. Of course, if you really believe your line of reasoning here, you must accept that heterosexual males are abused at much higher rates than reported, ergo comparing the statistics of homosexuals and heterosexuals abused is flawed, n'est-ce pas? You're getting tangled in your own web.

Okay. So because they are the same size, they don't batter? Ignores my point.

Are you having comprehension difficulties again? Read it again. Because women are smaller than men and not as strong is one reason they are less often the batterers.

Wow! So the society is to blame for the tensions within the relationship as well? What cannot be blamed on a homophobic society?

Not totally--you're selectively ingnoring what I wrote, which listed homophobia among several causes. Not surprised at the disengenuousness, though. Would you deny that dealing with homophobia causes more stress on gays? Yes or no?

So much for no difference in social networks, as Fez claims. Glad to see you refuting his point.

I'm not Fez, so makes no matter to me. But his post wasn't addressing the same issue at all, so this is more disengenuous argument from you.

No. Not at all. A homophobic society is merely the catch-all for all the problems of homosexual relationships?

Promiscuity? It's the repression of society that prevents us from forming long-term relationships. Endemic battering among lesbians? Gotta be the frusterations of society.

Maybe it has something to do with the relationships themselves, rather than simply blaming all your troubles on the world around them? Ever think of that Boris?

So what do we make of the fact that the same percentages of heterosexual relationships experience abuse, Ben? Is it the relationships?

People enter to bad relationships, whether gay or straight. Note that the majority of gay relationships, like heterosexual ones, don't have abuse problems. But no, you're content to ignore that with the double standard. You say abuse means homosexuality is wrong, but you're making a simplistic argument that is totally ignoring the causes of abuse in both heteros and homos. Nice deceptions, but transparent.

No. Read again. They acknowledge support not for the relationships, but for the people themselves.

First sentence of the paragraph, BK:

"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."

Now, wouldn't legal recognition of such relationships be a step towards acheiving their goals? One of the big reasons MSM abuse continues is because courts, not legally recognizing such relationships, are often not compelled to act. There's also the typical stereotypes men encounter in the legal system with abuse. I'm sure blackice can fill you in on that aspect. "Men don't get abused" is the common thought. So a gay abuse situation is often viewed as just a "spat," or worse as "S&M."

Show me then.

For one, Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumers' Report by Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder

Out of 202 "ex-gays" studied, only 6 claimed to still be "converted," The study found that over 178 of the men experienced side effects to these therapies that included significant levels of stress, anxiety, shame, depression and even suicidal thoughts or behaviors.

No, I never did claim a conspiracy? Do I blame anyone for delisting the procedure? I simply say that because they assume that homosexuality is not a disorder, therefore, such therapy can only cause problems. You assume what we are trying to prove.

Which, of coure, is ass-backwards. Assuming homosexuality is a mental disorder first and then trying to force that conclusion is what you're doing, and it's bad psychology. You have to prove something is a disorder, not that it isn't. Otherwise, everything is a disorder until proven otherwise.

So why did it happen, in your opinion, Ben? I've seen you post the conspiracy theory before, so have you changed your tune? Or just didn't want to fess up to it here?

Care to stand by that statement? Where's the evidence that homosexuality ought not to be considered a disorder?

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of proving a negative? Regardless, as said above, you have to prove something IS a disorder, not that it isn't. Duh.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publicati...delines.html#2

"For over a century, homosexuality and bisexuality were assumed to be mental illnesses. Hooker’s (1957) study was the first to question this assumption. She found no difference between nonclinical samples of heterosexual and homosexual men on projective test responses. Subsequent studies have shown no difference between heterosexual and homosexual groups on measures of cognitive abilities (Tuttle & Pillard, 1991) and psychological well-being and self-esteem (Coyle, 1993; Herek, 1990; Savin-Williams, 1990). Fox (1996) found no evidence of psychopathology in nonclinical studies of bisexual men and women. Further, an extensive body of literature has emerged that identifies few significant differences between heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual people on a wide range of variables associated with overall psychological functioning (Pillard, 1988; Rothblum, 1994; Gonsiorek, 1991). When studies have noted differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects with regard to psychological functioning (DiPlacido, 1998; Ross, 1990; Rotheram-Borus, Hunter, & Rosario, 1994; Savin-Williams, 1994), these differences have been attributed to the effects of stress related to stigmatization based on sexual orientation. This stress may lead to increased risk for suicide attempts, substance abuse, and emotional distress.

The literature that classifies homosexuality and bisexuality as mental illness has been found to be methodologically unsound. Gonsiorek (1991) reviewed this literature and found serious methodological flaws including unclear definition of terms, inaccurate classification of subjects, inappropriate comparison of groups, discrepant sampling procedures, an ignorance of confounding social factors, and questionable outcome measures. The results from these flawed studies have been used to support theories of homosexuality as mental illness and/or arrested psychosexual development. Although these studies concluded that homosexuality is a mental illness, they have no valid empirical support and serve as the foundation for beliefs that lead to inaccurate representations of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.

All major American mental health associations have affirmed that homosexuality is not a mental illness. In 1975, the American Psychological Association (APA) urged all psychologists to "take the lead in removing the stigma long associated with homosexual orientations" (Conger, 1975, p. 633). Subsequently, the APA and all other major mental health associations adopted a number of resolutions and policy statements founded on this basic principle, which has also been embodied in their ethical codes (cf. American Association for Marriage & Family Therapy, 1991; American Counseling Association, 1996; Canadian Psychological Association, 1995: National Association of Social Workers, 1996). In addition, this principle has informed a number of APA amicus curiae briefs (Bersoff & Ogden, 1987).

Thus, psychologists affirm that a homosexual or bisexual orientation is not a mental illness (APA, 1998). "In their work-related activities, psychologists do not engage in unfair discrimination based on ... sexual orientation..." (APA, 1992). Furthermore, psychologists assist clients in overcoming the effects of stigmatization that may lead to emotional distress."

At the request of the patient? I cannot see how giving the patient the treatment he requests would hurt him.

If a hypochondriac comes to a doctor convinced he needs his gall bladder removed, should the doctor just give him what he wants? If someone comes to a therapist asking for prozac, but doesn't meet any of the symptoms for it, should the psychiatrist give it to him? Can patients determine their treatment, or should doctors? And can doctors try any treatment, or should they stick with those that are studied and determined by the vast majority to be sound?

So are you a mental health professional, Boris?

No, Ben, but I'm not the one who is claiming 99% of all mental health professionals are wrong, am I?

So I should bang my boss against her will because that would relieve my tension?

So you're equating rape to homosexuality?

And you are a gay man presumably happy with the lifestyle, so what would you know about someone who does not like these desires?

Derrr, maybe because I also did not like the desires at first, and I had to learn to accept who I was? You really haven't a clue what gay people go through.

I can't do that if it isn't considered a medical procedure, and any psychiatrist who performs them is automatically expelled from the college, if he does help someone.

I can give you testimonies of people who have been helped by the therapies, but you know as well as I do, that they do not publish success rates.

Perhaps if psychiatrists were permitted to investigate the procedure, I could satisfy your demands of conversion rates.

As it is, there are people who are not happy, and many who are being helped.

BK, studies exist that were performed by pyschiatrists on those who underwent such therapy, as I cited above. You just seem not to be able to find any that support that it works...wonder why?

You claim it works, but have nothing but anecdotal evidence. And for every one of those you proffer, I can find you ten of people for whom it didn't work and caused harm.

I don't know. Go ask them. I don't work for either.

Answer: Because they are failures and don't have good numbers to report.

You seem to know, so why don't you tell us?

They're now lovers (been partnered for 10 years) and denounce the ex-gay movement as a sham that hurts gays.

What does it mean to be cured? Cured of your desires? No, I doubt they ever go away. People are weak Boris, and they backslide.

If only 6 out of 202 are successful in not backsliding, as you put it, what does that say for the validity of a therapy?

Have you? Then don't argue personal experience.

You have nothing else to base it on! You claim it works, but have nothing to back it up! I'm going by what has been empirically documented. You're just stating that you think it works. Gee, who's arguing fallaciously here?

So who one is is who one shags? People's identities ought not to be tied up solely in their sexual activities.

Who said, "solely," Ben? More disingenuity. Tsk. Would you deny that sexual orientation has a large impact on one's life and experiences?

If they desire the change? I cannot see forbidding anyone who wants to change the therapy without some hard evidence that it does the outrageous things you claim.

All therapies are good until proven harmful? You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Name me ONE medical procedure or therapy that is handled this way. You seem to want to make a special exception for reparative therapy. Again, a patient's desires isn't what determines the theraputic method. Should hypochondriacs get their gall bladders out?

Since you're so adamant that people should be able to request their therapies, what about a miserable heterosexual converting to homosexuality? Perhaps there's some poor guy who has failed with women, but always seems to get hit on by men, and he's convinced he'll find love and be happy if he can just convert to being gay. Should a therapist endulge this desire and try to homofy the subject? After all, if he's miserable being straight, isn't he entitled to get what he thinks he wants?

[Ned]

Because the laws against incest are there for a REASON.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Because the laws against incest are there for a REASON.

And the REASONS for incest laws are...?

Are they the same as those against homosexuality?

Not that I've seen. Unless you mean religious reasons, which we know are invalid justification in a secular society, correct?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


And the REASONS for incest laws are...?

Are they the same as those against homosexuality?

Not that I've seen. Unless you mean religious reasons, which we know are invalid justification in a secular society, correct?

Well the reason for the incest law is effectively just reinforcing good evolutionary behavior... incest causes imbreeding, and imbreeding is bad. Genetic diversity is good.

If there wasn't this genetic imperitive, then an incest law wouldn't have the same grounds, certainly.

[Boris Godunov]

Exactly. Which is not related to homosexuality, since homosexuals can't, as our lovely BK and others have pointed out time and again, produce children with their couplings, this reasoning behind incest laws stand.

[Ned]

BG, I see you DO understand the REASON and that the REASON does not apply to homosexuals and that therefor the law against incest as applied to homosexuals is UNREASONABLE.

So, some day in the not too distant future, some homosexual wants to marry his or her cousin, for example. The authorities say no, the homosexual couple challenge law and are granted a marriage license because the law as to them is irrational and denies them fundamental rights to privacy.

The next day, a heterosexual couple having the same relationship tries to take out a marriage license. They are denied. They sue. They win on the basis of denial of equal protection.

Bingo! The laws against incest fall.

[chequita guevara]

Incest generally involves exploitation, regardless of the age of those involved.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Incest generally involves exploitation, regardless of the age of those involved.

It also generally involves european royalty...

[Boris Godunov]

And Biblical figures!

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Incest generally involves exploitation, regardless of the age of those involved.

I see, Che. You have no good looking counsins.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I have yet to make that decision, to act on my desires, in such a way, as to sleep with a woman. So, yes, it is a conscious decision to act on my desires.

I shouldn't be surprised, but you're twisting the point. Acting on the desires is not the choice I asked you about. I asked you about the desires themselves -- the actual, involuntary, feelings and reactions you have to sexual stimuli. Can you control them? Can you change them? Can you make your body have those same reactions to a man?

If I never had sex the rest of my life, I'd still be straight. Even if I, somehow, had a sexual encounter with a man, I'd still be straight. My desires are for women. I can't change those.

No. Would I be gay if I had to?

Your question's irrelevant. Your "no" answer effectively answers my original, untwisted question however. Your body reacts on its own to being presented with sexual stimuli that it desires. Why do you presume it is any different with homosexuals, when they themselves tell you it is exactly the same?

Could I force myself to? Sure.

Interesting. Are you bisexual, then? It would explain a lot. Because I couldn't force myself to. My body simply revolts at the thought of it.

What rights are denied to them?

Marriage to the person of their choice. It's a civil right. Judges have said as much. Or have you not read any of the relevant court decisions in Ontario or Massachussetts?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I see, Che. You have no good looking counsins.

[Aeson]

So, some day in the not too distant future, some homosexual wants to marry his or her cousin, for example. The authorities say no, the homosexual couple challenge law and are granted a marriage license because the law as to them is irrational and denies them fundamental rights to privacy.

The next day, a heterosexual couple having the same relationship tries to take out a marriage license. They are denied. They sue. They win on the basis of denial of equal protection.

Bingo! The laws against incest fall.

If a closely related couple (ignore sexuality) is determined by the courts to be able to marry based on not being able (or perhaps willing) to procreate, it doesn't negate the reasoning for disallowing incest in any other situation (where they would be able/willing to procreate). It's still deemed wrong to have children in a situation where the partners are closely related. If marriage in such cases is deemed allowable due to the guarantee of no procreation, then any marriage which gaurantees no procreation would qualify. Whether that guarantee is an oath, simple fact of nature, or irreversable medical proceedure. A marriage which didn't give that guarantee would still not be allowable.

The law against incest doesn't necessarily have to be a law against marriage between closely related couples if the only factor (it's not) is genetic difficulty that arise. Marriage != Procreation.

[Ned]

Aeson, I think you agree with me - to an extent. You agree that a man could marry his cousin if they could not have kids. This certainly would apply if his cousin is male, but could apply if the man or woman were infertile.

Sophisticated.

I don't think the courts will see it that way though.

[David Floyd]

I don't understand while y'all are still debating with BK on this. He's as much as admitted already, in this thread, that is primary motivation for his opposition to gay marriage comes from Christianity. That being the case, no scientific argument you can make will get him to change his mind. The debate really should be about why we shouldn't apply Biblical teachings to secular law, not a debate about why homosexuality should be illegal in a secular society

[optimus2861]

^ DF, I agree -- but perhaps, just perhaps, there's some other chap on here reading the exchange who thinks the same way as BK does but who is able to see the weaknesses in the position. Not likely, I know...

Plus, every now and then, you've gotta go up against a real hard-head to strengthen your own arguments, too . Practice for when you debate with people you really might be able to persuade.

[Boris Godunov]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid...s_and_lesbians

Mayor of NY town starts marrying gay couples.

[Sava]

good for NY...

I've clarified my position a little bit. The government not legislate marriage in any way (gay or otherwise). Instead, all marriages (for the purpose of gov't) should be civil unions... licensed to any two individuals of age. The actual institution of marriage is a matter for the churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques.