Why is fighting gay marriage such a big issue for many of you?

Many people have a bias, much of which is based upon nurture (which as you say has “a multitude of factors”), and people have to realize that to answer the topic question we cannot ignore anything.

It certainly has to be understood that for some the opposition to Gay marriage is going to include whether Gays can be made by either by nature and or nurture. For some they will see any study that Gays make Gays as reason not to have them marry and raise children. And for obvious reasons that is why such studies exist. And any study commissioned by the oil company on Global Warming is going to be subjected to scrutiny by the liberals, so we cannot expect anything different from the conservatives.

Just like society accepts that some get polio from vaccine, we may have to accept that some become Gay from nature and or nature. Screaming at the top of one’s lungs that Gays raising children cannot make Gays is not science or debate.

http://www.who.int/features/qa/64/en/

The real point here is that what people have heard must not be ignored and cannot be confronted if it is ignored.

Such conversations are intended to hide and when heard intimidate:

“’Over the years and today, I've heard little about gay parenting being a problem.’ Have you heard otherwise?”

“Heard? Yes, I am NOT deaf or blind.”

“We must agree to disagree on this.”

Intimidation will not stop the person raised on the Old Testament or Paul to accept Gay anything, but in fact will just convince some of them that their preacher was right.

It has been stated that many children commit suicide because their Gayness is not accepted by society and parents.

Without any scientific proof of a Gay Gene in a way that might tend to indicate nature is the nature of their Gayness.

From my point of view even if they are born that way, or it is a lifestyle choice, it is better for them to marry than burn in lust spreading a fruit-loop virus.

“However, it is also due to the nature of the virus itself. AIDS, unlike many other viruses which humans vaccinate against, is extremely diverse and versatile.” http://www.wisegeek.com/why-is-it-so-hard-to-find-a-vaccine-for-aids.htm

I had to include that because some…Gays take offense and well, it is a play on words that accurately describes a bowl of fruit loops. Considering the video where the flight attendant on the New York to San Francisco route was told he would give others the new disease, and refused to stop going to the bathhouses, which the Gay community fought closing, Gay marriage is actually a good positive step in the right direction from the point of view of someone that does not want them to die either. Consider the possibility that the argument for Gay marriage, which is akin to quarantine, could also be bought by those that consider homosexual acts a sin; to me the more dangerous act to society is not getting married and playing around. My sixth grade Public School English teacher did say I was rude, crude, and socially unattractive.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny, you did not even address the sentence at all. I could actually agree with what you said there and still say what I said.

 

I was talking more about this quote: "As it is now when a study says a kid raised by Homos is more likely to experiment sexually logically the study may be skewed by a variety of factors, such as continuing peer pressure in a hostile community to remain closeted."

Key word "closeted" as saying that all the kids are gay.

“First, I thought we were talking about gay parenting.” (bomac)

In Psychology 101 we learn about nurturing (parenting and environment&#8230 and nature, and in Biology 101 we learn about nature; that is why they are core classes.

Ain't that great. But we were talking about gay parenting, no matter how much smoke you want to blow.

You say, “We have proof that the biological kid of a gay person can be straight or gay.” That is a meaningless statement, it does not say why. “Why,” is important to the discussion.

Sorry, you claim that we need a study. I said we have proof. Continue your smokescreen.

The reason why “any study would have to consider whether the biological kid of a homosexual could become one due to genetics and not nurturing,” is simply to prove that this is not the only reason if the child becomes gay:

You do know that no gay can created a child without a donation from the opposite sex.

To ignore biology would be a mistake, and to ignore the opposing argument would be stupid.

You seem to ignore biology. We have the evidence but you want more studies to delay the inevitable.

“THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GAY STATE OR A STRAIGHT STATE!!!" bomac "whereas a Heterosexual only Iran (where the Gay phenomenon does not exist)" divinecomedy

Yes, I was trying to tell you that oppressive countries, states still have gays. It is foolish to claim "where the gay phenomenon does not exist"

Now I know that you are kidding.” (bomac)

“'We don't have any gays in Iran,' Iranian president tells Ivy League audience”

LMAO. Well, as long as you have a "reliable?" source, you must be right (giggle).

 

"As it is now when a study says a kid raised by Homos is more likely to experiment sexually logically the study may be skewed by a variety of factors, such as continuing peer pressure in a hostile community to remain closeted."

“You flat out thought that children of gays would have to be gay. WRONG.” (bomac)

“A variety of factors” does not include “children of gays would have to be gay.”

And “continuing peer pressure in a hostile community to remain closeted” does not say “that children of gays would have to be gay,” it is just pointing out that such an environment “MAY” skew the results.

The operative word is “MAY.”

This is what you asked:

“Do you believe a kid raised by a gay couple will turn out gay?”

This is what I answered with a question:

“So why would it be such a kneejerk to think the biological offspring of a Gay man, raised by Gay men might come out Gay, and there be nothing nefarious going on?”

The operative word is “MIGHT,” and an operative phrase is “and there be nothing nefarious going on.”

“A Gay State might be amenable to Gay couples, and have a majority of Heterosexuals, whereas a Heterosexual only Iran (where the Gay phenomenon does not exist) might have a different thing going on with the sex changes and one day marriage (prostitution). {See News every once and a while.} When looking for the environment to study one is going to have to attach little labels.” (me)

We are talking about studies, and that includes environments to study, and the need to label those environments, the extreme would be a Gay only State or a Heterosexual only state such as “Iran…{See News every once and a while.}”

I repeat, we are talking about studies:

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...uch-big-issue-many-you-67.html#post1062673333

PAY ATTENTION!

I did not ignore biology, I pointed out that the article cited said:

“Siegel acknowledges the limits of all this research: none of the studies has been a randomized, controlled trial—the Holy Grail of scientific investigation—and all studies of gay parenting are necessarily small, since there aren’t many gay parents.”

Me quoting the article probably means I read it, but the man who linked to it either did not or he is a troll.

PAY ATTENTION! I am now going to irrefutably prove Johnny-C is a troll:

“Like Johnny-C said: "Over the years and today, I've heard little about gay parenting being a problem." Have you heard otherwise?” (bomac)

“Heard? Yes, I am NOT deaf or blind.” (me)

“We must agree to disagree on this.” (Johnny-C)

Is it ignorance, stupidity, blindness, or just being a trolling jerk (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) that made him say that?

Uh, this is from the article Johnny-C linked to:

“A dissenting Australian study,…”
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...uch-big-issue-many-you-67.html#post1062673333

 

Dance around it all you want. You believe gays create other gays without any proof. Using "closeted" without any specificity means all. Your "mays" and "mights" doesn't change your weird comments about gays and parenting.

But my real point is that you attempt to use "we need more studies" to stall giving a group of people their rights. Keep dancing.

“A Gay State might be amenable to Gay couples, and have a majority of Heterosexuals, whereas a Heterosexual only Iran (where the Gay phenomenon does not exist) might have a different thing going on with the sex changes and one day marriage (prostitution). {See News every once and a while.} When looking for the environment to study one is going to have to attach little labels.” (me)

We are talking about studies, and that includes environments to study, and the need to label those environments, the extreme would be a Gay only State or a Heterosexual only state such as “Iran…

I keep pointing out that your phrases "Gay States"/"Hetero States" are false labels. They do not exist, just as your claim that Iran does not have "the Gay phenomenon does not exist" is false. The "phenomenon" is Iran is the same as the "phenomenon" in the U S during the 50s and 60s.


I repeat, we are talking about studies:

I repeat that we have all the studies and experiences to allow gay marriage. You want to delay it because you are against gay marriages.

- - - Updated - - -

Dance around it all you want. You believe gays create other gays without any proof. Using "closeted" without any specificity means all. Your "mays" and "mights" doesn't change your weird comments about gays and parenting.

But my real point is that you attempt to use "we need more studies" to stall giving a group of people their rights. Keep dancing.

“A Gay State might be amenable to Gay couples, and have a majority of Heterosexuals, whereas a Heterosexual only Iran (where the Gay phenomenon does not exist) might have a different thing going on with the sex changes and one day marriage (prostitution). {See News every once and a while.} When looking for the environment to study one is going to have to attach little labels.” (me)

We are talking about studies, and that includes environments to study, and the need to label those environments, the extreme would be a Gay only State or a Heterosexual only state such as “Iran…

I keep pointing out that your phrases "Gay States"/"Hetero States" are false labels. They do not exist, just as your claim that Iran does not have "the Gay phenomenon does not exist" is false. The "phenomenon" is Iran is the same as the "phenomenon" in the U S during the 50s and 60s.


I repeat, we are talking about studies:

I repeat that we have all the studies and experiences to allow gay marriage. You want to delay it because you are against gay marriages.

 

For me the answer is pretty simple and is summed up in a quote..(roughly)

"The love that dare not be mentioned has become the love that will not shut up"

 

Both are based upon constitutional law.

- - - Updated - - -

Court precedent isnt overturned by a vote on legislation.

 

Aren't you embarrassed by that answer? Couldn't you have said the same thing about women suffrage, civil rights and anti-war demonstrations.

It really isn't an answer to why it is a big issue to fight against giving a group their rights.

 

Wrong court precedents are often overturned by legislation.

 

Nope, takes a contrary constitutional amendment to alter court precedent. Such strong opinions regarding matters you know nothing about.

 

Nope. Nope.

 

Wrong. Dead wrong. The only thing congress can't overturn by legislation are court decisions regarding the protections afforded by the constitution (i.e. if the court decides the constitution gives one the right to an abortion, congress can't pass a law outlawing abortions without a constitutional amendment to that effect).

Congress can, at any time, pass legislation to overturn federal court decisions if:
1. Congress has the power to pass it under article I
2. The law would not circumvent a constitutional guarantee (as interpreted by the court).

 

People have been denied reasonable rights for too long... do you expect the best outcomes with human beings when that kind of thing happens?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you so sure that YOU know what you are saying? (I do not think you are correct.)

 

Thats why I use basic Constitutional, equal protection analysis to support my views, as opposed to subjective discomfort.

 

Except you're not, you're hiding behind the rulings of gay averse judges who, as I said, will eventually die and be replaced with younger ones, which is already happening. Remember, justices found Constitutional basis for propping up slavery too. That didn't make it right or even Constitutional. Pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you're upholding the Constitution all you want, but you know better in your brain, because while I think you're someone who has a subjective discomfort with gay people, I do not think you're a stupid man.

 

We have 3-5% of the population taking up a vast amount of everyone's time over an issue that is pretty much over...Today I do not believe most folk are 'fighting' against gay rights but are simply bored to death by the issue and horrified by the idea that it will still be one of the lefts talking points a decade from now.

Put another way, the left needs to realize when they have won, have a nice celebration and move on....

and yes, I can say the same thing about women's rights and civil rights, both issues that passed their sell by date decades ago but still haunt the lefts talking points....is there never going to be a point when the left will acknowledge success and let the country move on. They sound like a porch full of ex-confederates in 1910 reliving their glories and advising anyone who will listen that 'the South will rise again'...it didn't, it won't and the country has solved 90% of our real civil rights/gay/women's issues and all that is left is rhetoric and the activist industries that arose when the problem was real but is now simply annoying.

 

The REAL reason conservatives are against gay marriage? They're afraid all the "good ones" will be taken.

 

No, after years of debating the issue and Homos saying they were born that way, I strongly suspect there is a genetic component, and there is an opposite to what you said, “You believe gays [cannot] create other gays without any proof.”

“You want to delay it because you are against gay marriages.” (bomac)

“Quote Originally Posted by bomac View Post

I didn't know DivineComedy thought it was cool.”

“I support LGBT marriage.” (me) http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...uch-big-issue-many-you-59.html#post1062653216

When I pee blood it makes me irritable, when that happens it makes me more irritable.

 

Well, YOU spend a lot of time talking about "boring" stuff. What is it about giving people equal rights that horrifies people like you. I do not believe that a decade from now that it will be an issue.

Put another way, the left needs to realize when they have won, have a nice celebration and move on....

We have. You guys keep coming back to it as if you think that you can change the progress.

and yes, I can say the same thing about women's rights and civil rights, both issues that passed their sell by date decades ago but still haunt the lefts talking points..

I don't believe it haunts me. It seems to haunt you.

.is there never going to be a point when the left will acknowledge success and let the country move on

Yes, when we have equal rights and opportunities for everyone.

the country has solved 90% of our real civil rights/gay/women's issues

Sorry, 90% is not good enough. You are saying that we have 10% to go. Well, it may not affect me but I can not accept a 10% problem for others.

 

Do you need to change my comment to argue your point?

I didn't know DivineComedy thought it was cool.”

Yes, I did say that to a poster who said that you thought anal sex cool. Do you think anal sex is cool? Or do you just want to distort any discussion?

 

I have no problem with equal rights...I am just opposed to the lefts refusal to acknowledge when they have won the debate and to move on...Does anyone really think the gay rights momentum is in any way with its opponents. In a decade or so there will be no issue at all yet I fear we will have a cottage industry of Gay activists making a living on the backs of an issue long settled, like the lefts race baiters do today...or NOW. The industry of victimhood is one that never ends...

 

This is Ryan Gosling -



he's a very handsome dude. I'm straight and have no problems telling you I find him very handsome. I have a girlfriend who also knows I have a man crush on Ryan Gosling. You know what kind of straight guy is uncomfortable telling other people he is able to find another man handsome ? A closeted gay guy, that's who. The same with gay marriage - if you think two gay people getting married is going to ruin your straight marriage, it's probably because you're unhappy in your marriage.

 

It's a preference for biological parents joining together to provide and care for their children, not an aversion to gays.

 

That's bollocks. Marriage isn't just about children, and you've been explained that enough to know that it's not a new concept. It is your opinion that gay people cannot be good parents. There are gay people that are raising children. They should be able to enjoy the same benefits given to opposite sex couples, who don't even have the slightest obligation to use their marriage for what you state it's intentions are either. That's why this is wrong. You're expecting same-sex couples to live up to requirements you don't enforce on anyone else but them. That's a baseless exclusion. If you want marriage to be ONLY about children, exlcuding same-sex couples is not the way to go about it. You need to change the marriage laws so that they are only benefits that are specific to raising biological children. You need to tell sterile couples, elderly couples, and couples who simply don't plan to have children that their marriages are invalid.

And I'd also like to ask why biological children are the only children allowed to have married parents? If one of the parents die or divorce, the remaining one should not be allowed to marry because the person she's marrying does not have any biological children with her. Say she's had a tubal ligation and won't ever have another child. No more marriages for her, as she has exhausted her need of them since the only person with whom she has biological children has passed away or moved on somewhere else. We've been down this route before and you always bring up the "potential" for biological children. Well, once a woman or a man has had their respective reproductive systems effectively disabled, there is no potential. There is nothing separating those people from same-sex couples when going by your viewpoint that marriage is solely for raising biological children.

Your case is a sham, it always has been, and you know it. You're not defending marriage out of some concern for parenting, you're doing it because you don't want gay people to be seen as "equal" when it comes to marriage. That's awfully disgusting.

- - - Updated - - -

You have to look at the flipside.

Why are those people able to do what they do? There is no case if there has been no wrong done.

 

Marriages limitation to heterosexual couples is ALL and exclusively about the potential of procreation. And baseless denials arent explanations.

If she marries a man, they CAN have biological children.