East of Eden wrote:cnorman18 wrote:
There are those phony reasons again. Lots of people can't procreate, and you aren't at all interested in banning marriage for the infertile or those over 50;
And there's that phony objection again, as I've pointed out before, an infertile heterosexual couple can provide a mother and father to an adopted or in vitro child.
Which of course brings us to the question of why you dont want to ban single parenthood and other parenting situations that arent normal, but only those that involve gays. That
proves that your objection isnt to single parenthood, as youre hypocritically pretending, but ONLY to GAY parenthood.
and it isn't homosexuality that constitutes a "deadly lifestyle," but promiscuity.
Which is part and parcel of the homosexual lifestyle, making the concept of marriage meaningless.
No, it isnt. You are saying that homosexuals are ALWAYS promiscuous, that it isnt possible to be a homosexual and NOT be promiscuous, and that just isnt so.
From
Wikipedia, which gives its sources:
The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:
In 1952, when the American Psychiatric Association published its first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, homosexuality was included as a disorder. Almost immediately, however, that classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. That study and subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation. As results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.
In recognition of the scientific evidence,[55] the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities. After thoroughly reviewing the scientific data, the American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, and urged all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations. The National Association of Social Workers has adopted a similar policy.
Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.[3]
The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality. The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.[56]
Dont tell me, I know Opinion.
Except that YOUR opinion should determine the law for EVERYONE, right?
Further: If the concept of marriage is meaningless to gays, why on Earth are so many of them working so hard to make it legal?
"Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.'"
Rotellos opinion is noted. He is considered an extremist, even among gays, and his attitude was considered atypical at the time and is now scarce, as you prove yourself below.
4 Rotello's perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.6
Ive noticed how you keep referring to that 32-year-old study, so I thought Id do a little research myself. Heres what I found:
Youre referring to Bell and Weinbergs book,
Homosexualities, published in 1978, according to the footnote in your quote. Those statistics have been discredited for decades, and if youd looked beyond anti-gay websites where its still prominently featured, youd have known that.
In the mid-70s, San Franciscos Castro Street district had become famous, or infamous, depending on ones attitude, as the center for outrageously open gay behavior. Gays flocked there from all over the US, actively seeking that promiscuous lifestyle. There were pockets of it elsewhere, but by 1978, the Castro was world-famous for it.
Taking a survey on promiscuity in the Castro in 1978 is about as reliable and unbiased, not to say significant, as taking a survey on the promiscuity of young straight women who just happen to work in whorehouses. That survey is not representative of the lifestyles of all gays, and it never was.
Further,
the authors of that study, Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, say that themselves: . . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals. (Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1978)
[Promiscuity is] a much bigger problem among heterosexuals, from their sheer numbers alone.
Now that is a dishonest argument, as they are many more normal heterosexuals. Let's stick to per capita arguments, OK?
Why? If promiscuity is a huge problem among homosexuals, which it isnt, its just as big a problem among heterosexuals. Why do you want to do something about the miniscule numbers of promiscuous gays and nothing about the millions of promiscuous straights? In other words, why are you punishing
being gay instead of
being promiscuous, while hypocritically posing as punishing the latter?
Since monogamous homosexual couples, of which there are many, lead a lifestyle no "deadlier" than monogamous heterosexual couples, legalizing gay marriage would logically make promiscuity LESS common among gays, not more so.
Far fewer gay couples stay together, and the ones that do are far more promiscous than their heterosexual counterparts.
More discredited studies? Or just your opinion, this time?
You DID NOT respond to this, so Ill repeat it:
, legalizing gay marriage would logically make promiscuity LESS common among gays, not more so.
Why does it make sense to PREVENT gays from engaging in monogamous, committed relationships?
Then logically you should want to prohibit single parenthood, and children living with one parent and a same-sex sibling of that parent, and children being raised by single grandparents, and so on. The fact that your objection doesn't apply to those groups proves that your objection is actually to homosexuality, not to other-than-conventional parenthood. If the same-sex couple isn't gay, or if the single parent isn't gay, it's not a problem, or at least not a problem serious enough to ban marriage for those people. QED.
Few would argue that single parenthood is a good thing, and there is plenty of documentation to its negative effects. Black children, for example, raised in intact households with a mother and father do about as well in life as their white counterparts.
Single parent households and same-sex households with kids are both bad options.
No one ever said that single parenthood was an ideal; thats another straw man, of course.
But you only want to ban these situations when they involve gays! WHY NOT THE OTHERS?
Thats PROOF that youre not actually concerned about non-conventional parenting, as youre
pretending, but about the parents
being gay. You admit that these are all bad options, but they only ought to be BANNED if the couple is GAY. Are you getting this?
Your reasons are indeed phony, because they arent your real concern even according to your own words right here.
And you KEEP ON trying to misrepresent what I'm saying; at this point, I would have to say that that is dishonest. I've never said that Christian involvement in public policy is bad, no matter how many times you try to put those words in my mouth.
See? You can't mount an actual argument; all you can do is argue against strawmen and keep presenting the same well-refuted arguments about procreation and disease and so on. We've been over all this more than once already, and you keep pretending we haven't.
Wow, you refuse to address this, don't you? Once again, if liberal Christians opposed Prop. 8 because of their religious convictions, wouldn't that make it un-Constitutional, by your reasoning?
Okay, youre not going to let go of this, so lets deal with it three different ways:
First:
Opposing or supporting anything on any grounds isnt unconstitutional. Thats nonsense. Only a LAW can be unconstitutional; but supporting a law that is, or would be, isnt. Freedom of speech is the rule there; you can support taking the vote away from women, slavery or monarchy if you like, and its as constitutional as all hell.
The laws that any of that totally legal and constitutional support would pass, though, would be struck down by the Supreme Court on first review. Does that help?
Second: Imposing a religious doctrine on everyone isnt illegal if it involves only ONE denomination or ONE religion, but if it imposes
any religious doctrine at all. That is the clear text of the Amendment, and the clear ruling of every Supreme Court since the Constitution was ratified in 1789.
The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and if the members of ANY religion want to perform gay marriages, prohibiting them infringes upon that practice. NOT prohibiting gay marriage, on the other hand, doesnt infringe on anybodys rights or practice. Period.
Third: Even if gay marriage were made legal primarily because of the involvement for religious reasons of liberal Christians, which is pretty clearly not the case (only a few such organizations have openly espoused and supported it), it would not be an unconstitutional law. Why not?
Because it infringes on no ones liberty, as noted above. It could be said that Dr. Martin Luther Kings religious convictions were encoded into law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964; BUT, that was inarguably and unquestionably constitutional because
no ones rights were violated by it.
Whose rights are violated by the legalization of gay marriage? How would it limit or infringe upon your rights?
You do NOT have the right to live in a society where everyone lives according to your rules, sorry about that. Legalizing gay marriage doesnt dictate what anyone has to do or not do. Therefore theres no challenge to it, and no way it could even theoretically be unconstitutional.
Thats all pretty clear, I think. Itll be interesting to see how youre going to respond to it without actually addressing the issues.
Like I said; I've made myself too clear here for you to have misunderstood me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Christians, fundamentalist Christians, or anyone else opposing gay marriage and working to ban it for whatever reasons they like, including reasons based on religion. Okay?
OK, I get that, but it is completely contradictory with your next sentance:
What I keep trying to tell you is that imposing a religious doctrine on all Americans is unconstitutional, and any law that enshrines the idea that homosexuality is in any way "bad," "evil," or otherwise subject to special sanctions under the law is absolutely a religious doctrine.
Maybe Ive explained that adequately above. The fact that you see a conflict between these paragraphs pretty well demonstrates that you dont understand what Im talking about.
Its legal to support an unconstitutional law. Its futile and pointless, but its legal.
You haven't given [a reason to oppose gay marriage] yet that you'll apply to straights as well, which means your "reasons" aren't about what you pretend they are, but about being gay.
Yes, that's what the debate is about.
So you ADMIT that you dont care about single parents, same-sex caregivers, infertile people, life expectancy, or any of those stalking horses; they only matter if the people involved are GAY.
That seems clear enough to me. Thanks.
Repeating a misstatement of fact doesn't make it true; and an objection based on an argument I haven't made (and that you know I haven't made) is meaningless.
It isn't your argument about the Christian left supporting gay marriage that gets me, it's your double-standard silence on it.
Silence?!?! Ive explained why your objection is nonsense half a dozen times.
Like in the next thing you quote.
Because it's a question based on a lie. I never said that involvement of fundamentalists in the political process was wrong in the first place, so the question contains an implicit falsehood.
No, you just said if the 'fundamentalist' were to prevail, it should get thrown out as unconsitutional.
That is arguably an infringement on free excercise of religion.
I think thats explained above, but please, for the record, tell us how living in a country where gay marriage is legal infringes upon the free exercise of your religion.
You dont get to dictate the practices of OTHER people, no matter what your religion is; but you are perfectly free to continue to oppose gay marriage, and to NOT marry someone of the same sex as yourself, even after its legal. Wheres the infringement?
One more time (and I point out that your failure to answer this is very, VERY suggestive): Can you cite any opposition to gay marriage at all, from any source, that ISN'T based on the idea that being gay is "bad"? Sorry, but assuming that that idea is self-evidently true doesn't count.
5,000 years of human experience and no culture until now believed marriage to be anything other than between a man and woman. You can say definatively that that was 100% religious?
Changing the subject isnt answering the question, to wit: Can you cite any opposition to gay marriage at all, from any source, that ISN'T based on the idea that being gay is "bad"?
And no, just because something has been done for thousands of years doesnt make it right or correct. By that standard, we should still be treating women (and others) as property and selling debtors into outright slavery.
FASCINATING! The very article you cite shows that the promiscuity youre so concerned about is a thing of the past, if it ever existed at all outside of the Castro Street district.
From your own link:
For better or for worse, to be unattached and gay is not what it used to be. Gone are the guilt-free days of free love in the clubs, of hooking up at bathhouses and reveling in promiscuity, which Mr. Dobbs prefers to call sexual generosity. In are elaborate weddings, shared property, pets and children.
Mr. Dobbs said that even on Fire Island, where cohabitating with 12 other men was once a time-honored tradition, a friend who is an utterly bourgeois gay homeowner complains that he gets the gimlet eye from gay and lesbian parents because he is not in a relationship. Another friend scolded Mr. Dobbs that if he had never wanted to marry, there must be something wrong with him.
And that brings me around, again, to a point Ive made over and over, and that you have ignored entirely; Gay marriage would
encourage monogamy among gays and lesbians and, without a doubt, reduce the incidence of promiscuity that you think is such a huge problem (though it apparently isnt when it occurs among straights). Why dont you have a quick, facile answer to that, too?
Being gay is no more "bad" than being tall or left-handed.
Your opinion. To me, the drastically shortened lifespan of gay males is 'bad'.
Hello! Another discredited statistic.
That information comes from one Paul Cameron, a thoroughly discredited anti-gay activist who has distorted and misused statistics from many scientists who are on the record as protesting the misuse of their work.
Here is the conclusion of a
review from the University of California at Davis:
The Cameron group's gay obituary study reports many numbers and statistics. However, they are absolutely worthless for estimating the life expectancy of gay men and lesbians.
Before you dismiss that as opinion, as you usually do with points which you find hard to answer, read the review. The Camerons approach, methods and results were all so deeply flawed that they are statistically worthless.
Further:
Cameron was expelled from the American Psychological Association in 1983.
Reason? "He was misrepresenting and distorting other peoples' psychological research and using it to sensationalize his point of view on homosexuals. He talks about homosexuals being mass murderers and child molesters and credits other people for those findings. If you read their research, they have in no way made such claims. We have letters from those researchers saying his (work) has distorted their research." Natalie Porter, assistant professor of psychology at University of Nebraska. (LA Times-8/20/1985).
Yet one more time: Do you have an argument against gay marriage that doesn't begin with the premise that being gay is "bad," which is a sectarian religious doctrine?
The fact you don't agree with the answers already given doesn't mean you haven't gotten answers.
True. Okay. So, just for the record, lets review the answers you claim that youve given already. Here are the questions again:
What reasons are there to oppose gay marriage that arent based on the idea that being gay in itself is bad?
Why should Christians have the right to force their religious beliefs and practices on everyone?
You are here claiming that youve given answers to those, and I havent seen any. Ive seen dodges,
tu quoque,, changes of subject, the repetition of weak points that have been refuted multiple times, and
non sequiturs by the dozen, but I havent seen those answers.
Dont bother to claim that I didnt understand them. Just repeat them, and well let the readers decide if theyre coherent or meaningful.
