The real gay agenda?

[okinrus]

yes, Oki is just concerned about the bottom line. How is Homosexual marage gonig to affect the GDP. I think thats the question on everyones mind. These fundies opposition to marage doesnt stem from dogmatic indoctrination to bigotry, but instead from ligitimate concern about the economy. Why if gays just went around getting hitched every time they fall maddly in love who KNOWS how that might impact wallstreet. Until there is evedence to show that married gays can produce more revenue for the nation I say we should forbid them from it. In fact, i think gays shouldnt be allowed healthcare, drivers licences, or public education until they can prove that they are not a satanic pluage that is going to destroy socioty and its values.

(Some major sarcasism going on here...)
No, but lack of evidence would be good reasons to remain conservative. If you believe in a definition of marriage excluding gays, is it really that unreasonable to look at both the benefits and consequences? My opposition against gay marriage is no different than my opposition to polygamy.

 

[heart]

okin,

I just don't think it's right or fair that goverment should endorse marriages that a significant part of the population doesn't agree with.

Is this the only reason, or does it also have to do with your religious beliefs? If a significant part of the population were in agreement with it, would your "opinion" change?

Also I'm not sure if two mother or two father relationships are healthy for children.

You might not be certain but the American Academy of Pediatrics seems to be. See below quotes and references

Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports legislative and legal efforts to provide the possibility of adoption of the child by the second parent or coparent in these families. link: http://www.aap.org/policy/020008.html

EDITOR'S NOTE: The February issue of Pediatrics also contains "Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents." The technical report provides details on the growing body of scientific literature that suggests children who grow up with gay or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children whose parents are heterosexual.
link: http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/febsamesex.htm

below is from the Technical Report mentioned above

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes
link http://www.aap.org/policy/020008t.html(emphasis added)

I think this is important and speaks not only for same sex parents, but all non-traditional families.

 

[okinrus]

<i><b>
Is this the only reason, or does it also have to do with your religious beliefs? If a significant part of the population were in agreement with it, would your "opinion" change?</b></i>
No, but Iwould consent that the goverment is governed by the people and if the people want something then it's certaintly not my right to take it away.

 

[Walker]

It would be good if you quote statistics that prove that gay marriages result in less drug use, more productivity, and more revenue but, as of right now, we don't have anything to support that.

can you quote statistics that support the opposite? otherwise, your point is moot.

 

[SpyMoose]

Originally posted by okinrus
Iwould consent that the goverment is governed by the people and if the people want something then it's certaintly not my right to take it away.

Yes, the government is governed by the people, and generally they get what they want. However I'm sure you have heard of the principal of Majority rule with minority rights. Why cant a catholic community vote to place a tax on being Jews? Because minorities have rights in the United States.

You may look at a homosexual couple and see some sort of circus freak show, perhaps you shake your head and wonder what is going on with society that such a couple can move around in public and be recognized as a couple. But homosexual couples view themselves to be in every way the equivalent of a heterosexual couple (Only we get to have more fun in bed) but we also see that for some reason the establishment refuses to acknowledge us as such. The only reason of substance that we can see to deny such an acknowledgement is preconditioning from religion and society at large. As homosexuality gains more acceptance we are naturally more insistent that our view of our couplehood being equal to that of a heterosexual couple be legitimized by marriage. After all, homosexual relationships are not just play, or rebellion. The emotions and commitments involved are just as real as in a heterosexual couple, yet for some reason our relationships are marginalized by the state which willfully withholds the practical benefits that become necessary when a couple has decided to make its commitment perminant.

To gays this is not a wait and see sort of situation, we deserve this right and it is extremely difficult to see how anyone who champions the denial of it is anything but an unthinking bigot.

Oki, your assertion that marriage benefits are for the rearing of children is obtuse, being that yuppies also get these benefits, gays can adopt (artificial insemination is popular with lesbians I hear) and most of the benefits have very little to do with children, there are separate benefits entirely for families with children.

 

[okinrus]

<i><b>can you quote statistics that support the opposite? otherwise, your point is moot.</b></i>
If the goverment is financing a program then the goverment certainly finds out where and what purpose the money going to. And unless if you can prove that gay marriages have more benefits than disadvantagous, then there would be no point putting in any more money into them. The burden of proof is on those supporting gay marriages.

 

[okinrus]

<i><b>You may look at a homosexual couple and see some sort of circus freak show, perhaps you shake your head and wonder what is going on with society that such a couple can move around in public and be recognized as a couple. </b></i>
No, not really. I do recognize them as a couple but not a strictly speaking married couple. If pressed, I would probably use the word married to avoid insulting others but we are debating what marriage means.

<i><b>
But homosexual couples view themselves to be in every way the equivalent of a heterosexual couple (Only we get to have more fun in bed) but we also see that for some reason the establishment refuses to acknowledge us as such.
</b></i>
This acknowledgement means redefining terms.

<i><b>The only reason of substance that we can see to deny such an acknowledgement is preconditioning from religion and society at large.</b></i>
The society at large is how most words are defined.

<i><b>As homosexuality gains more acceptance we are naturally more insistent that our view of our couplehood being equal to that of a heterosexual couple be legitimized by marriage. </b></i>
The state puts in money to marriages in order to support the wellfair of children. This is fine, if and only if you can prove that most homosexuals would raise children and that same-sex relationships are not harmful or negative in any way to children. You would also have to show that same-sex marriages produce the same type of benefits that normal marriages do.

 

[SpyMoose]

I'm not so sure, your claims that gay marrage would have noticeable negative impacts seems more than a little outlandish and you have never developed it, I think YOU still have more than a bit of proving to do yourself Oki.

 

[SpyMoose]

Originally posted by okinrus
This is fine, if and only if you can prove that most homosexuals would raise children and that same-sex relationships are not harmful or negative in any way to children. You would also have to show that same-sex marriages produce the same type of benefits that normal marriages do.

You have yet to prove that heterosexual marriages produce benifits, that childless marriages cause an economic drian, or that children who's guardians are of the same gender negativly impacts them. In fact, you would probably have to prove that parents of the same gender are more harmful than having no parental guardians at all because that is the alternative for the child that a Married gay couple would adopt.

 

[okinrus]

You have yet to prove that heterosexual marriages produce benifits, that childless marriages cause an economic drian, or that children who's guardians are of the same gender negativly impacts them.

I posted the statistics proving that heterosexual marriages produce benefits on the pdfs a while back. I don't really know if the children of same gender negatively impacts them but we do have statistics on fatherless homes. I would be suprised if gay marriages produce the same sort of benefits but it's a possibilty.

 

[Mystech]

To start, I’d like to ask Okinrus to support his claims regarding “Gay bowel syndrome”. I have serious doubts about the existence of such a condition, and would like to see some information from credible sources on it. The very name tells me that all I’m likely to get from this request is links to some horribly bigoted hate site without any real medical credentials. The very name “Gay bowel syndrome” suggests that this is something that was concocted specifically to be derogatory toward homosexuals, as it is simply not a valid medical term. Sounds a bit like “Nigger’s elbo” or something like that.

Originally posted by okinrus
<i><b>can you quote statistics that support the opposite? otherwise, your point is moot.</b></i>
If the goverment is financing a program then the goverment certainly finds out where and what purpose the money going to. And unless if you can prove that gay marriages have more benefits than disadvantagous, then there would be no point putting in any more money into them. The burden of proof is on those supporting gay marriages.

This is completely fallacious. We are a government BY and FOR the people, not some seedy thug in a back alley who'll do what you want so long as you make it worth his time. There is no burden of proof because there isn't anything which must be proven. Homosexual marriage doesn't hinge on how it's going to make the lives of unaffected third parties any better, it is a matter of how it would make the lives of those who are actually involved better. It is about justice and equal protection under the law for all people living in this great nation!

Society at large stands to gain or lose next to nothing at all if this change is made. If homosexual marriage is legalized, hundreds of millions of Americans will wake up the next day, and the day after that for as long as they live and never notice any adverse difference in the climate of their society because of it. But for those of us who are currently being repressed and have to live with this insane denial of rights we'll finally be able to breath a sigh of relief, and get on with our fucking lives.

Oki, your arguments are nothing but complete ad hoc bullshit, you know as well as everyone else here that not a single thing you've said has had any real credibility and doesn't truly mirror the functioning of this nation or reasonable concerns within this issue. Just say it already, you don't want gay marriage because you HATE homosexuals. You are a bigot, and you can smile at me and deny it all you like, but even when you've got a big grin on your face your words and the spirit behind them wreak. You want to keep in place a selfish and bigoted regime which seeks to deny rights which it claimed it would guarantee based upon completely arbitrary differences. You may not be staying up late at night thinking of the best way to load up all the homosexuals into a boat, send it across the ocean and sink it half way, but so long as you are in favor of standing on the side of those who would relegate us to second class citizens and then scoff at the suggestion that we should have the same rights as everyone else, and you feel comfortable with this, then you are a bigot! You are a puppet of intolerance and hatred, and let them stick their metaphorical hand up your ass willingly.

 

[Walker]

Okinrus: I think that when I society begins to look to the government (or any corporate investor) for wisdom, that's when you know it's moral fibre has begun to break down. I'm not implicating or even contradicting you...I do agree that this is the community opinion. But I also think that if society compels a party to look to its financiers for support (or even validity), we have problems.

The argument that I present compelled many colonists to help form my country.

 

[okinrus]

<i><b>To start, I’d like to ask Okinrus to support his claims regarding “Gay bowel syndrome”. I have serious doubts about the existence of such a condition, and would like to see some information from credible sources on it. The very name tells me that all I’m likely to get from this request is links to some horribly bigoted hate site without any real medical credentials. The very name “Gay bowel syndrome” suggests that this is something that was concocted specifically to be derogatory toward homosexuals, as it is simply not a valid medical term. Sounds a bit like “Nigger’s elbo” or something like that.</b></i>
It is a slang word if that's what your asking but it's catch all for a number of diseases infecting the bowel area.

<i><b>There is no burden of proof because there isn't anything which must be proven. Homosexual marriage doesn't hinge on how it's going to make the lives of unaffected third parties any better, it is a matter of how it would make the lives of those who are actually involved better.</b></i>
You should then be able to post facts about how gay marriages lower drug use and lessen the chances of other ailments.

<i><b>
Oki, your arguments are nothing but complete ad hoc bullshit, you know as well as everyone else here that not a single thing you've said has had any real credibility and doesn't truly mirror the functioning of this nation or reasonable concerns within this issue. Just say it already, you don't want gay marriage because you HATE homosexuals. </b></i>
No, I believe in the traditional definition of marriage that most dictionaries use. There are also definitions of bigot and human beings in their as well. I suggest that you go look them up and decide if I really meet the definition of a bigot. Your taking these arguments too personal. You shouldn't get this upset at someone who merely disagrees with you on what marriage means.

 

[Mrhero54]

Oki

I admire your dedication to defending your position. However, i would like to know what bothers you about same sex marriage. What i mean is, if a gay couple were to move across the street, would it bother you? and if so why?

 

[SpyMoose]

Originally posted by okinrus

It is a slang word if that's what your asking but it's catch all for a number of diseases infecting the bowel area.
...

You should then be able to post facts about how gay marriages lower drug use and lessen the chances of other ailments.

So you admit that there is no such thing as "Gay Bowel Syndrom", interesting.

Also i think the point Mystech was making was that we can leave the disease curing to the doctors thanks, lets let the lovers get married. Why the heck should heterosexuals be allowed to be married when it dosnt reduce the US's dependancy on forign oil or feed starving puppys? Thats not what its ment to do you nutball! (But im sure what you meant to imply was that gay marriage would create MORE drug use and MORE dissease, to which I must simply roll my eyes and wonder why I insist on trying to argue, if thats what you believe I really shouldn't bother to continue to beat my head against your wall of stupid)

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by okinrus

It is a slang word if that's what your asking but it's catch all for a number of diseases infecting the bowel area.

Ahh, I see, so you can find no credible medical source to support your claims of a "gay bowel syndrome"? Am I to understand that this "slang word" is simply descriptive of your own opinion of how unclean anal sex is? Honestly Okinrus, it's not really cute when you take your opinions and try to make them sound like some sort of scientific fact. I'm glad that you had the guts to come foward on this issue, though and admit that you made it up (or as good as that, at least).

Originally posted by okinrus
You should then be able to post facts about how gay marriages lower drug use and lessen the chances of other ailments.

I re-iterate that this is nothing but a straw-man argument. The issue of homosexual marriage does not depend on any such factors, no more than does heterosexual marriage. I could sit here and argue at length about the idea of homosexuals as diseased drug users, and I think I have at some point on these forums, but this is not at all important to this topic. If you'd really like me to argue along those lines then I'll have to demand that you show the benefit of heterosexual marriage to ME and my community, and should your reasons be unsatisfactory I'll see to it those rights are stripped. Sounds pretty fare, doesn't it?

Originally posted by okinrus
No, I believe in the traditional definition of marriage that most dictionaries use. There are also definitions of bigot and human beings in their as well. I suggest that you go look them up and decide if I really meet the definition of a bigot. Your taking these arguments too personal. You shouldn't get this upset at someone who merely disagrees with you on what marriage means.

You're quite free to believe in any restrictive definition of marriage that you like, but when you think it's your place to impose those restrictions on the rest of the world, when it's simply none of your business to toy with the lives of others in such a manner then we have a problem.

You are quite correct that I take this issue very seriously, as unlike you, who can sit in his nice comphy chair and simply think of this issue as an interesting bit of theology (don't tell me that's not the major factor biasing your opinion here), I and millions of others actually have to live with the consequences of people acting on views similar to yours. It is people like you who give them license to do so, giving them permission, which you haven't any right to give in order to play games with my life and screw me over. I hope you'll excuse me if this really pisses me off.

 

[okinrus]

<i><b>
So you admit that there is no such thing as "Gay Bowel Syndrom", interesting.</b></i>
No, here's a .edu site that uses the term "gay bowel syndrome".
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hai/news_publications/tar/fall94/fall94-1.html I didn't make it up, it's a word describing various bacteria infections. It is also sometimes describes muscular failure in that area.

<i><b>
Also i think the point Mystech was making was that we can leave the disease curing to the doctors thanks, lets let the lovers get married. Why the heck should heterosexuals be allowed to be married when it dosnt reduce the US's dependancy on forign oil or feed starving puppys? Thats not what its ment to do you nutball! (But im sure what you meant to imply was that gay marriage would create MORE drug use and MORE dissease, to which I must simply roll my eyes and wonder why I insist on trying to argue, if thats what you believe I really shouldn't bother to continue to beat my head against your wall of stupid)</b></i>
No, but to recieve benefits, they would have to produce at least some benefits. You don't want the goverment to hand out free money do you? If you do, then it would mean that married couples get more benefits than the state than unmarried couples while at the same time not producing any benefits. The happyness of the couple cannot be used as an objective criteria.

<i><b>You are quite correct that I take this issue very seriously, as unlike you, who can sit in his nice comphy chair and simply think of this issue as an interesting bit of theology (don't tell me that's not the major factor biasing your opinion here), I and millions of others actually have to live with the consequences of people acting on views similar to yours. It is people like you who give them license to do so, giving them permission, which you haven't any right to give in order to play games with my life and screw me over. I hope you'll excuse me if this really pisses me off.</b></i>
Yes, Mystech I'm only debating a subject. I'm not calling you a bigot, evil or anything like that. I'm not screaming at you for taking away my rights but I'd like to see more evidence that shows the benefits legalizing gay marriages would have verses a joint union type of contract. Like in most things, it really comes to a matter of principles. The US had no problem taking away mormons right to practice polygamy. No problem for them and this was considered to be a religious duty by mormons until a later prophesy.

 

[Mystech]

The next year, physicians in both California and New York officially described clusterings of rare diseases associated with immunodeficiency among gay men. By 1984, when I joined the Division of Hematology and Oncology at New England Deaconess Hospital in Boston, the strange immunodeficiency syndrome had a name, and HIV had just been identified.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hai/new...4/fall94-1.html

Your link identifies "Gay bowel syndrome" as the name some people were using to refer to HIV back in the 70's before HIV had really been discovered. So apparently you have been using the term wrong, and to use it seriously these 30 years later is really nothing but slander. In other words it's not what you say it is, it was never a genuine medical term, and your use of it is derogatory.

I find it interesting that you should end up going around using such an antiquated term, while unaware of how antiquated it has become. It makes me wonder if all of your information regarding homosexuals are just as old and out of date. If information from the 70s is the best you've got no wonder you seem to have illusions about homosexuals being abnormally promiscuous and prone to drug use, that was what the 70s was all about (Or so several jaded history teachers I've been instructed by assure me).

Originally posted by okinrus
No, but to recieve benefits, they would have to produce at least some benefits. You don't want the goverment to hand out free money do you? If you do, then it would mean that married couples get more benefits than the state than unmarried couples while at the same time not producing any benefits. The happyness of the couple cannot be used as an objective criteria.

If you really feel that this is the way the matter should be treated then this amounts to nothing more than an argument against marriage in general, regardless of the gender of the participants. Whether or not marriage should be recognized by the government at all is another matter entirely, but so long as we live in a world where the benefit is given to some, should we restrict it to others based upon fairly arbitrary differences?

Also, I find your grasp of the benefits provided to married couples to be a bit incomplete. The government isn't busy handing out money to anyone, marriage isn't draining our government coffers. Protection comes mostly in legal considerations. Likewise homosexual marriages (more marriages) isn't going to have a financial impact on our government.

 

[okinrus]

<i><b>Your link identifies "Gay bowel syndrome" as the name some people were using to refer to HIV back in the 70's before HIV had really been discovered. So apparently you have been using the term wrong, and to use it seriously these 30 years later is really nothing but slander. In other words it's not what you say it is, it was never a genuine medical term, and your use of it is derogatory.</b></i>
No, AIDS weakens the immune system and peope were dying of bacteria which was labeled gay bowel disease. Gay bowel disease has not been a medical term since the 1980's but it was the term used by by one of the website's statstics. AIDS was not called "Gay bowel syndrome", it was first called GRID for Gay-related immune deficiency. It's since not been used in the medical community because it does not effect the bowel or just gays. http://www.books.md/G/dic/gaybowelsyndrome.php

 

[heart]

Okin,

It's since not been used in the medical community because it does not effect the bowel or just gays

So what the hell does that tell you????? ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! *hits head on desk*
Oink, you know... I have tried very hard to think that you aren't looking at this situation as a bigot..but every time you open your mouth.. I can't help but feel that you are.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing your, "until you can prove to me same sex marriage is beneficial to society then I don't see it being WORTHY to be equal to heterosexual marriage" AHHHHHHH this is soooooooooo fucking insane, okin!!!!!

Why don't we break the groups down to those who are within 5 years one another's age..can that be beneficial opposed to those who are 10 plus years more of one another's age... How about those who come from middle class vs lower..and so on and so on... you keep at it okin, what will be left????

I know you don't feel this way, but I happen to think that you should ditch the gender... look, nothing comes guaranteed... there are heterosexual couples that divorce at a sneeze... I think it is high time we stop trying to decide if a person is worthy based on what they can contribute in monetary terms.. That's just utter bullsh*t! It would be BENEFICIAL to educate and teach others NOT to be prejudice, and start accepting people not for their race, sex, etc...but their heart. Helping to wipe out prejudice is a hell of a lot more beneficial to society as a whole.

You just couldn't understand how Mystech could " take these arguments too personal. You shouldn't get this upset at someone who merely disagrees with you on what marriage means."
Well, Okin.. I think that was pretty uncaring to ask such questions of a homosexual. Maybe for once if you could break out of your religious dogmatic bubble and try to put yourself in another's shoes you could UNDERSTAND why that might be personal. Instead, you would rather hold onto outdated bigoted so called diseases of, "Gay bowel syndrome". Give me a freaking break!

Divorces among heterosexuals are a dime a dozen...and knowing the homosexual population amounts to approximately 3% is NOTHING compared to heterosexuals. Shit Okin...maybe you should just find out the world's perfect method of compatibility among US citizens to see who the hell is worthy enough for benefits in a marriage...and then only allow it. All I see is you trying to hold onto your prejudice trying to justify it with stupid so called benefits to society.