Ban on Homosexual Marriage

[tuins]

Harmful Homosexuality

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.

*Daily, Timothy J., Ph. D. Family Research Council. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3&f=TS04B01 “Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk.” Issue No.: 238.

[Crys]

Family Research Council is full of crap.

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:

[Kris10]

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.

You can learn more at www.fairwisconsin.com

[andy]

I just want to see something Bush is in favor of fail.

[plathrop]

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.

Homosexuals experience a greater rate of promiscuity

Men experience a greater rate of promiscuity than women. Thus, men shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Homosexuals experience a greater rate of substance abuse

• Victims of chronic mental illness experience a greater rate of substance abuse. http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c...act/40/10/1041
  Women suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (such as women who were abused as children) experience a greater rate of substance abuse. http://www.seekingsafety.org/7-11-03...pa%2010-03.pdf.
  In fact, both men AND women who have been abused as children experience a greater rate of substance abuse. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation
  And while we are talking about such wonderful family values, persons whose parents are substance abusers experience a greater rate of substance abuse. http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...ract/55/11/973 and http://journals.cambridge.org/action...line&aid=10529

Thus, victims of chronic mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, or child abuse should not be allowed to marry?

Homosexuals experience a greater rate of partner abuse

• Victims of chronic mental illness experience a greater rate of partner abuse. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/...ract/155/1/131
  Low-income people experience a greater rate of partner abuse. http://www.springerlink.com/content/x766j1303q013130/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation
  Children who have been exposed to partner abuse experience a greater rate of partner abuse. http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/ccp714741.pdf

Thus, victims of chronic mental illness, children exposed to partner abuse, and low-income persons should not be allowed to marry?

Homosexuals experience a greater rate of incest towards children

By this I can only assume you mean sexual abuse of a child (whether it's incest or not is irrelevant, it's evil either way).

Guess what. The biggest perpetrators of child sexual abuse are:

• Men. http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol4no2ART2.pdf
  Victims of abuse. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

So, men and sexual abuse victims shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Homosexuals experience a greater rate of mental health problems

Mental health problems are highly prevalent among the poor (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation and https://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications...aper2_0497.htm) and victims of abuse ( http://www.springerlink.com/content/k5713n4325822p24/ ).

So, of course we shouldn't allow the poor or the abuse victims marry.

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?

[tuins]

Dear Plathrop,

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.

[tuins]

Dear Kris10,

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.

[plathrop]

Originally Posted by tuins

Dear Plathrop,

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.

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.

[tuins]

Dear Kris10,

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.

Take care.

[tuins]

Dear Plathrop,

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.

[plathrop]

Originally Posted by tuins

Dear Plathrop,

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.

[rudedog]

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.

[Crys]

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.

[keith]

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument:

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