Homosexuals experience a greater rate of promiscuity, substance abuse, partner abuse, incest towards children, risk of mental health problems, and risk of suicide than do married heterosexuals.*
Homosexuality is destructive, and if homosexuals are allowed to marry someone of the same sex, this unacceptably destructive lifestyle will be seen as acceptable. Please vote “Yes” to ban homosexual marriage.
It's really easy to make things up to get people to support bigotry who maybe would be smart enough not to otherwise.
The REAL fact is that as a percentage, homosexuals and bisexuals (myself included) are no more likely to be any of those things than heterosexuals. The real fact is, we're just like everyone else. My neighbor who's a man is genetically pre-programmed to respond to women. Why is it so hard to believe that I might be too? I fail to see why you give a d@mn about what I do in my own bedroom as long as all involved are consenting adults and I have an even harder time understanding why you're so certain that letting kids grow up with parents who love each other, regardless of their gender, is somehow a bad thing.
The real fact is, this is nothing but discrimination on the basis of gender. People are people. Period. Saying that a woman can't marry a woman SHOULD mean that a man can't either, and vice versa. Anyone who thinks otherwise also probably thinks that women shouldn't be allowed to work and should just stay home barefoot and pregnant and still be treated like property. As long as it's codified law that a man can do something that a woman can't, we will never even approach true equality.
And on top of that, see my other post about this Resolution. It's not really entirely about "gay marriage" though I'm sure the fundamentalists would like you to think so in an effort to get people to vote for it. It's about taking their religion and forcing it on the rest of us as though anyone single who has a relationship before they're married is somehow not worthy of being a first class citizen. So much for the separation of church and state. :roll:
I will be voting a big fat NO on Tuesday. Here are my reasons:
- Change "homosexual" in the first post of this thread to a race: Black, White, Hispanic, etc. See how ridiculous and archaic it sounds? A vote of NO is a stand against hate. We discriminated against races for years, creating an embarassing history we will never live down. We have to stop discriminating against sexual orientation.
- The LGBT people I know are some of the most loving parents I know. They also have wonderful, committed relationships. I've seen more relationship strife and promiscuity with my straight friends (Christians included) than I have with my LGBT friends.
- The divorce rate in America is what, over 50% now? Clearly "traditional" marriage isn't working. What are we supposed to be saving?
- I've been happily married to my husband for three years. What has changed since we committed to marriage? Nothing except now we both have bad credit. Our relationship is as committed as it ever was, we didn't need to get married. I've seen that true love means a lot more than a piece of paper.
I've decided on my vote based on my own experiences and ability to think, not from my upbringing or religion. My politics and religion are vastly different. Just because my religion is dominating our political climate doesn't make it right.
Your arguments could be a bit more convincing if you were posting research from a scientific institution with a less obvious agenda. Let's take a look at some of these statements.
Quote:
Homosexuals experience a greater rate of promiscuity
Men experience a greater rate of promiscuity than women. Thus, men shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Quote:
Homosexuals experience a greater rate of substance abuse
So, of course we shouldn't allow the poor or the abuse victims marry.
Quote:
Homosexuals experience a greater risk of suicide
Here is where your argument seriously falls apart. The worst risk factors for suicide include cohabiting or being unmarried! That's right - homosexuals commit suicide because we won't let them get married! (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/...ract/160/4/765).
The usual other factors are noted in that article as well, lending force to the fact that your arguments would require us to ban all of these people from marrying:
Men
Victims of mental illness
Abuse victims
Poor people
The fact of the matter is that none of this matters to you because this isn't about logic, equality, reason, or even adherence to the religious principles you no doubt pretend to hold. It's idiocy. Why does this scare you so much? Is your marriage really so unstable that it will fall apart if others are allowed to hold the same status? Or are you unmarried and thus completely unqualified for this discussion?
You made some good points. However, I do not mean that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because of the problems listed. I am simply saying that homosexuals statistically experience a greater risk of having these problems, which I believe is largely the result of the homosexual behavior.
I believe that homosexuality is harmful to the person who engages in it, and so it is a behavior that should not be encouraged (whether in marriage or out of marriage). I addressed marriage specifically because it is on the upcoming ballot, and because granting the legal status of marriage will probably make homosexuality seem more acceptable.
P.S. You are right that I should have used more unbiased sources. However, the article that I referenced does contain unbiased sources for the data.
Thanks for your response. I don't think the issue of sexuality is like the issue of race, because there is choice involved in the one and not the other. A person does not always have a choice as to how they feel, but they can choose what they do.
I do not think it is wrong to have a homosexual attraction, any more than it is wrong for a married heterosexual to be attracted to someone to whom they are not married, but acting on either is a choice.
We should not discriminate against people, but we all should and do discriminate against many sorts of behavior.
You made some good points. However, I do not mean that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because of the problems listed. I am simply saying that homosexuals statistically experience a greater risk of having these problems, which I believe is largely the result of the homosexual behavior.
Now you are starting to sound a little more sensible. Statements that involve the words 'I believe' are a far cry from stating something as a fact.
Now, the fact is that you are depending on statistics that do not say what you think they say. I've read many of the sources your link references, and they just don't indicate the conclusions you are drawing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuins
I believe that homosexuality is harmful to the person who engages in it, and so it is a behavior that should not be encouraged (whether in marriage or out of marriage). I addressed marriage specifically because it is on the upcoming ballot, and because granting the legal status of marriage will probably make homosexuality seem more acceptable.
P.S. You are right that I should have used more unbiased sources. However, the article that I referenced does contain unbiased sources for the data.
Thanks.
Well, I believe that homosexuality is no more harmful than blue eyes, blond hair, a cleft chin, or heterosexuality is. Your argument about 'granting the legal status of marriage' is specious. Are you so infirm in your beliefs that having gays marry will suddenly change your mind about what is acceptable? I submit that anyone whose personal philosophy or religious faith is so weak should probably reexamine those beliefs anyway.
Keep your beliefs out of my law, and I'll keep mine out of yours.
Thanks for your response. I don't think the issue of sexuality is like the issue of race, because there is choice involved in the one and not the other. A person does not always have a choice as to how they feel, but they can choose what they do.
I do not think it is wrong to have a homosexual attraction, any more than it is wrong for a married heterosexual to be attracted to someone to whom they are not married, but acting on either is a choice.
We should not discriminate against people, but everyone discriminates against behavior. For example, doing drugs is discriminated against.
Thanks. I don't think that my beliefs about homosexuality will change if homosexual marriage is allowed. However, there are many others who may believe that if our laws say it is OK, then it must be OK.
I realize that you don't think the data shows that homosexual behavior will bring harm to a person, but if it does, it would be uncaring to act like there's no problem with it.
Thanks. I don't think that my beliefs about homosexuality will change if homosexual marriage is allowed. However, there are many others who may believe that if our laws say it is OK, then it must be OK.
I realize that you don't think the data shows that homosexual behavior will bring harm to a person, but if it does, it would be uncaring to act like there's no problem with it.
Staring at the sun harms people. Ear piercings bleed. Drinking alcohol harms people (even the ones the law allows to drink it). Shall we outlaw these? Riding bicycles harms people. Wearing tight underwear harms people. Sunbathing harms people. Let's pass a constitutional amendment!
I'm not asking you to act like there's no problem. You are welcome to your beliefs. I want to remain welcome to my beliefs. Legislating this is not the answer. If you feel these people are hurting themselves, feel free to talk to them about it. Befriend them, try to show them the error of their ways. But don't pass a law because face it: you might be wrong. Harm caused by homosexuality is a lot harder to prove than harm caused by exposure to the sun.
It is simply not acceptable for the government to step in on this. You can't have it both ways. Either it's a choice - and we should remain free to make that choice, or it's not a choice - and we shouldn't be discriminated against for something we have no control over. Either way you look at it, this amendment is the wrong way to handle it.
we could debate this forever, but the vote is soon.
ill be voting yes. why?
because i've grown up around homo's and bi's, and because of this simple fact. not only do i not allow them into my house around my children. im not going to allow them to distort something as sacred as marriage.
bottom line is what happens in your bedroom, should stay in your bedroom!
i dont want to know about it, and i definitly dont want to be forced to accept it.
which is what this issue is really about! gays want to force everyone else to accept their perversion as normal.
ok crys, you can ban me now.
__________________
"An adventure is just misfortune properly reconsidered,"
Ok, let me step in here. As the, as far as I know, ONLY non-heterosexual person on this board, and therefore the ONLY person here qualified to state whether or not being GENETICALLY HARD WIRED to be attracted to both men and women is harmful: YOU ARE WRONG.
In fact, my ability to ignore gender makes me a much HEALTHIER person, able to see a much broader spectrum of possibility in the world. I PITY people who are so limited that their FEAR of things that are dfferent from they are makes them think it is a "perversion" or somehow wrong, just because it's different.
That broader view makes me an excellent problem solver and factors in the top-notch job I do every day. Don't believe me, ask my coworkers who also post here. If I was closed off, I'd be worthless as an artist and a designer.
rudedog, do you notice a pretty girl walking by or find yourself riveted to a commercial that has a particularly attractive woman in it? Do you think it's wrong when you do? No? THEN WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S WRONG WHEN I DO?! I am a person first, and a woman second. I love people first, their gender, not at all. In all other respects relating to people, I'm just the same as everyone else. So you can keep your sexism to yourself and KEEP IT OUT OF MY LAWS.
In fact, tuins, the only thing harmful or dangerous or greater risk for being non-heterosexual is CAUSED BY PEOPLE WHO HATE US. YOU are the problem here. You. It's only dangerous because you have decided that your narrow distorted view of the world has to be legislated down to the rest of us, that we are NOT WORTHY OF BEING PEOPLE. Because of that, some people think it's ok to beat up, taunt, discriminate against, and even KILL us.
I'm not going to ban you rudedog, not even considering it, but I must say, I'm very disappointed to find out that you're not really as good at critical thinking as I thought you were. I don't mean that as an attack, though I know it could easily be read that way, and I'm sure you don't care that I'm disappointed, but there it is.
2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation.
3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.
4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.
5. an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse.
6. subject matter; theme: The central argument of his paper was presented clearly.
7. an abstract or summary of the major points in a work of prose or poetry, or of sections of such a work.
There's been more good argument in this thread than I've seen in any commercial, talk show or news program.
Though it may become terse, I thank you all for respecting other people and their voices even as you oppose their arguments.
I just wanted to let you know that I don't hate or dislike you at all. I do believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, but I would still like to consider you my friend, if is is alright with you.
but I must say, I'm very disappointed to find out that you're not really as good at critical thinking as I thought you were.
Im ok with that, I have many times questioned my own ability to process certain info. Unfortunately im far from knowing it all. I would settle for the ability to figure out the stupid S.E.F bot on my site. (Makes me crazy)
Besides your far from being the first I’ve disappointed.
But for the record, even though I have not explained in-depth my reasoning here in this forum. I have considered the issue in great depth. Far greater then my fingers can endure to relate here. Besides as p.k knows im not a stranger to long winded (sometimes over emotional) forum battles over this issue. I don’t care to have one of those here. Im kind of tired. Im glad the vote is soon, hopefully it will be settled.
Like I have said before, I grew up around many gay, bi, and have many years to observe, and contemplate the harsh realities of their lifestyles. I have also witnessed the very real consequences on those around them. Much of my views on this issue of course are formed based on these experiences. Add to that the spiritual, biological, phychological, emotional, social, and philosophical, and im pretty firm of my opinion on the matter.
Quote:
Critical thinking consists of a mental process of analyzing or evaluating information, particularly statements or propositions that people have offered as true. It forms a process of reflecting upon the meaning of statements, examining the offered evidence and reasoning, and forming judgments about the facts.
Critical thinkers can gather such information from observation, experience, reasoning, and/or communication. Critical thinking has its basis in intellectual values that go beyond subject-matter divisions and which include: clarity, accuracy, precision, evidence, thoroughness and fairness.
Quote:
That broader view makes me an excellent problem solver and factors in the top-notch job I do every day. Don't believe me, ask my coworkers who also post here. If I was closed off, I'd be worthless as an artist and a designer.
ok, you got me here. As an amateur artist and an amateur developer, I fail to see where your sexuality has anything to do with your ability. While it is true that I may not have many of the skills that you have. I have many friends that do, and I don’t think their sexuality has anything to do with their abilities. If it did then I have reason to believe that the best, and most devoted artists and developers would be asexual. Not distracted from their focus by either gender. They would then be able to concentrate their entire lifestyle on what they desire to create.
LoL, besides i think females are hot, cant blame you for thinking the same. we agree on this at least.
__________________
"An adventure is just misfortune properly reconsidered,"
Besides as p.k knows im not a stranger to long winded (sometimes over emotional) forum battles over this issue. I don’t care to have one of those here
Boy do I remember! lol But that was a type of forum that no one could say what they thought without someone jumping on them that it finally got everyone being so sensitive that everyone snapped at each other.
It really is good to see how everyone here seems to respect the fact that people have a right to have different thoughts without fear that you will be kicked off the forum, ridiculed for saying what you think, or just plain bullied or bashed for your thoughts.
It's been actually very interesting to sit back and read what everyone's thought are on this subject.
As for me...I'm going to just sit this one out for now and just read the comments! Besides I value my online friendship with rude to much to risk getting him riled up over this subject again! lol
LOL. yep major btu's goin on. when the little icon next to the forum topic showed flames, it ment it. HOT!! :lol:
posts were coming faster then you could refresh the screen.
i dont want to go there again.
__________________
"An adventure is just misfortune properly reconsidered,"
We should not discriminate against people, but we all should and do discriminate against many sorts of behavior.
I am seeing a lot of "homosexuality is a choice" as reasoning for discrimination (which I don't agree with). Using that argument, religion is also a choice, yet our laws don't discriminate against someone for it. A Muslim has the same legal rights as a Christian to marry. I'd like to see a LGBT person have the same rights as a straight person.
I'd also prefer to keep it to the same level we have here right now. If I wanted a flame war, I'd go find some fundamentalist group and troll their forum.
First off, being who I am is not a choice any more than those 90% who are straight chose to be who they are. When exactly did you choose to be straight? I know I never chose to be who I am, and frankly, I don't know anyone who actually chose their preferences. It's just a fact.
There was a study done, oh, it's probably been about five years ago now, that demonstrated marked physical differences between women who were attracted to women (that would be both lesbians and bi) and those who aren't. I don't remember who did the study off the top of my head, but if anyone's interested, say so and I'll go find it again. Physical differences. It's not a behavior. It's genetic.
I don't have a problem with other people thinking there's something wrong with me. If you don't want me near your kids because you think my genetics are somehow a communicable disease, well *shrug* I don't care. I care about other people trying to make it a constitutional amendment that I don't deserve to be treated like a person. If your religion tells you it's wrong, great, don't have a gay marriage. My religion doesn't prohibit it, so why should your religion be legislated on me? You might as well pass a law saying that I count as 3/5 of a person in the census because I have red hair. It's just as nonsensical.
Tuins, I would much rather have you as a friend. Not everyone loves old books like we both do. But please understand that I am having more than a little trouble reconciling "I'm your friend" with "but I think that you, everyone like you, and everyone single who cohabits without marriage, regardless of gender preference, should have a Constitutional Amendment barring them from being considered a full human being."
rude, what I meant was, it's the mindset. The thing that IS a choice in the matter is whether or not to be in the closet. If I was so closed off and denied who I am, in any respect, I would be a terrible designer. I would second guess everything I did, oh, is that too fashionable, oh, is that too masculine a design? Was I careful enough in my explanation? Will they figure it out? And the "broader view" I mentioned is my ability to ignore social and intellectual boundaries. It's also part of the mindset. It's a result of looking at the world and realizing that the stupid compartments people make up to shove the rest of the world in are just that, made up. It evolved from realizing that just by existing as I am, I already transgress those boundaries. I do not feel constrained by the intellectual walls that say "you must solve all things this way and this way only". As Keith put it a couple weeks ago, for me there is no box.
And the reason the realities of life as glbt are harsh is because of people who make it that way. If people would, to be blunt, get their heads out of their @!!es and realize that people are just people and deserve to be treated that way, and all given the same opportunities, then life as glbt wouldn't be any harsher than life as a straight. Same is true for all minorities. It IS harsh. I have family who won't speak to me, who wouldn't let me hold their babies at the last family reunion, because they think I'll rub off on the child or something, I don't know why exactly. They're scared of what they don't understand, what's different from them, so I must be eeeeeeeeeeeevil incarnate. But you know what? I don't want their fundamentalism rubbing off on my son either, because as far as I'm concerned, they're nine-tenths of the reason this country has strayed so far from its founding principles. They make me wish there really was a hell so I could point and laugh when they end up there for judging others.
But that's neither here nor there. The real point is: Love is never wrong.
Just listened to back-to-back interviews on Wisconsin Public Radio. Opposing viewpoints on this subject. Two different interviewers and guests. Both interviewers seemed sympathetic to their respective guest.
Based on this thread, my life experience, and the interviews I just heard, :
I will Vote "No".
I hope you will do the same.
Here are my reasons:
If you vote no, nothing changes (and gay marriage is still not legal for those concerned about that issue).
If you vote yes, you may make it possible for companies and government entities to deny fundamental rights to unmarried individuals (no matter what their sexual preference)! These fundamental rights include medical power of attorney and healthcare benefits.
We do not need a Constitutional Amendment that accomplishes nothing except making it possible to deny anyone, gay or straight, fundamental legal rights.
That's it in a nutshell. Please vote no.
Regards,
Keith
Bravo...once again I'm pleased to see intelligent respectful conversation on theBubbler from very opposite position holders.
The ban on gay marriage is simply DISCRIMINATION, nothing more, nothing less.
Gays are not asking for any special treatment, they only want the same rights as non-gays.
If gays are allowed to marry it would not affect heterosexuals in any way. This is simply a case of "I don't like your lifestyle so you can't have everything I have."
I think there should be a ban on people who want to ban gay marriage because hatred is "un-natural"
I think there should be a ban on people who want to ban gay marriage because hatred is "un-natural"
this is a matter of perception. especially since my religious right friends and i see nothing hatefull about what we just did. nothing at all.
even though we get accused of it time and time again. and regardless of how many times we get accused of it, we still dont see it that way.
basically from our point of view we were forced to protect ourselves. if the gay community had pushed for options other them marriage (Holy Matrimony, a thing we hold as sacred) they would have had a much better chance. even though i understand they had a hard time with getting some options to go through, like the register. people like me could have cared less if they had a register. but when the attack came against something spirtually sacred to me, guess what. i have something to say about that.
while gays most deffinitly have to contend with an undercurrant of hatered in many places and ways. this is not one of them.
when a bill is introduced condeming them all to a deserted island. or some other bill which prescribes a severe legal punishment for being involved in the lifestyle, then you claim hatred. and since homo sexualls are already protected under federal law from having to endure this type of punishment, i think they are being treated fairly.
till then you can accuse us of being biggots a thousand times, and at the end of the reduntant rant, were still going to believe that we protected the moral fibre of america, the most basic and nessecary social unit of our society.
to be honest i dont really understand how the government even got into the buisness of registering marriages anyways, marriage is a religious thing, always has been, always will be. just so happens that the government has control over who gets a lisence and who doesnt. if the federal government fell tomorrow, you could still get marryed. just go to your local paster and go through the ceramony. as soon as he says i pronounce you man, and wife. its done. marriage is a spiritual thing.
i would also like to note that the vote really didnt pass by that much. i was very supprised to see that many vote no. even though this was a very important issue to me, i would like to point out that neather my friends or i are doing victory dances. this was just one issue, in a long list of issues.
besides i dont really believe this is going to be the end of this issue.
__________________
"An adventure is just misfortune properly reconsidered,"
I think there should be a ban on people who want to ban gay marriage because hatred is "un-natural"
Quote:
this is a matter of perception. especially since my religious right friends and i see nothing hatefull about what we just did. nothing at all.
even though we get accused of it time and time again. and regardless of how many times we get accused of it, we still dont see it that way.
basically from our point of view we were forced to protect ourselves.
Protect yourselves from WHAT? Are gay married couples trying to break into your house & rob you?
Are they trying to stop you from being marrried?
Are they protesting funerals of American Soldiers? No, that would be radical christians.
Are they letting their leaders molest kids and then try to protect them from prosecution? No, that would be the catholics.
If anything, we need protection from out of control, self righteous christian fanatics!
Quote:
when a bill is introduced condeming them all to a deserted island. or some other bill which prescribes a severe legal punishment for being involved in the lifestyle, then you claim hatred. and since homo sexualls are already protected under federal law from having to endure this type of punishment, i think they are being treated fairly.
When a group of people are being denied over 100 rights by law as the rest of us, how can you say that is being treated fairly.
Quote:
till then you can accuse us of being biggots a thousand times, and at the end of the reduntant rant, were still going to believe that we protected the moral fibre of america, the most basic and nessecary social unit of our society.
Same arguement was used against interacial marriages not that long ago.
Quote:
marriage is a spiritual thing.
If marriage was only a spritual thing I wouldn't have a problem, but since not allowing a certain group of people to be married denies them the same equal rights as everyone else I have a problem.
Quote:
besides i dont really believe this is going to be the end of this issue.
I agree, it won't be the end of this issue because there are people who will always believe in and fight for equal rights for all!
OnYourMark, LLC is a full-service web design, production, programming, hosting and Internet marketing company with audio, photography and video services in our studio on Main Street in Sussex, Wisconsin or at your location.
We serve clients in industry, healthcare, eCommerce, professional services, real estate and construction, information services, hospitality, advertising agencies, and more...throughout Wisconsin and the USA. Please contact OnYourMark for a free, no-obligation consultation about increasing your inquiries and sales while decreasing your costs via the web.
Linear Mode
