Homosexual Marriage

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Is accepting Homsexual Marriage a fast track to Polygamy, Incest, and all that stuff, or is it an issue by itself?

You don't choose to be Homosexual. You choose to marry several women and I'm not sure about Incest, but there is a harmful factor to incest (though I think it is smaller then what most people think it is)

So it's a stand alone issue (logically).

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Winter wind You don't choose to be Homosexual. You choose to marry several women and I'm not sure about Incest, but there is a harmful factor to incest (though I think it is smaller then what most people think it is) So it's a stand alone issue (logically).

Incest is known to cause genetic defects, my opinions on it are still undeveloped as it would depend on the severity and frequency of the defects, essentially it is medically harmful, but if two members of the same family fall in love who are we to stop them?
The same goes for homosexual marriage I might add.

[Halofan48]

Well, i'm not sure about the genetic defects thing, but it does cause a small lack of genetic diversity, which can be harmful to a species, yet this is a bit off topic so i'll end there.

[Tycoon]

The same goes for homosexual marriage I might add.

Except homosexuality does not cause genetic defects. There really is no reason to deny gay marriage.

[Matt W]

Amon - you don't hate gays, but you want to be free to discriminate against them, and other people that 'the facist PC brigade' protects?

Sorry, but it really seems to be somewhat of a mixed message here...

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Winter wind You don't choose to be Homosexual. You choose to marry several women and I'm not sure about Incest, but there is a harmful factor to incest (though I think it is smaller then what most people think it is) So it's a stand alone issue (logically).

Thanks for the comment. Polygamy is sometimes choice for one, but not so much for the other, same goes for incest, but I get the gay thing being no chose at all.

This definitely would put a damper on all those who feel gay marriage will lead to other forms of corruption. Heterosexuality and Homosexuality are alike that they aren't a choice.

[Tycoon]

Amon - you don't hate gays, but you want to be free to discriminate against them, and other people that 'the facist PC brigade' protects? Sorry, but it really seems to be somewhat of a mixed message here...

And a waste of everybody's time.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Tycoon And a waste of everybody's time.

That's the biggest deal, it's a waste of time, and we're all running out of that everyday.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Anmon And where in your history book does it show gay marriages being arranged and approved of in society's throughout history for power, wealth, assets etc.

I guess that means you haven't read any of John Boswell's works or that of his contemporaries, then.

Quote by: Anmon Marriage whether you can face it or not, is still recognised world wide essentially as basically a union between a man and a woman, like it has been for all time, what ever the reasons for it happening. The only people who disagree with this are seen rightfully as freaks.

Apparently most of us don't fit your "freak" criteria, since none of us has denied opposite sex marriage is the reigning paradigm. I even stated so previously, so I don't get where you think I'm unable to "face it or not". I suggest you spend less time immersed in your dogma and read for content in the future.

It is intellectually dishonest to infer same-sex marriage has never been expressed in past writings by homosexuals or that same-sex marriages have never been performed by clergy throughout history. You've simply chosen to ignore the history on the subject.

Again, I suggest you do your homework. Your railing against 'pc-ness' isn't providing enough shade to cover your obvious ignorance re: the historical desire for same-sex marriage.

[Anmon]

[=italiangm;495526]I guess that means you haven't read any of John Boswell's works or that of his contemporaries, then.

I'm not interested in reading about a guys view of what history was, and presenting it as fact when it wasn't.

It is intellectually dishonest to infer same-sex marriage has never been expressed in past writings by homosexuals or that same-sex marriages have never been performed by clergy throughout history. You've simply chosen to ignore the history on the subject. Again, I suggest you do your homework. Your railing against 'pc-ness' isn't providing enough shade to cover your obvious ignorance re: the historical desire for same-sex marriage.

This is deliberately misconstruing the point I was making about gay marriages being accepted by society's in the past as equal to conventional ones, presenting a few ceremony's performed now and then by obviously gay clergy, and not possibly recognised by the Church, doesn't make your statement here valid.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Tycoon Except homosexuality does not cause genetic defects. There really is no reason to deny gay marriage.

The point was that there hasn't been enough evidence shown to deny incestuous marriages as that would in my opinion depend on the damage done by incestous reproduction. The same goes for homosexual marriage, nobody is yet to come up with an arguement strong enough to deny a marriage of homosexual couples. Obviously as homosexuals don't utilise their fecundicity gene pool defection is irrelevant.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Anmon This is deliberately misconstruing the point I was making about gay marriages being accepted by society's in the past as equal to conventional ones, presenting a few ceremony's performed now and then by obviously gay clergy, and not possibly recognised by the Church, doesn't make your statement here valid.

I enjoy debating with people like you, there are so many people around today that base the future on simply what people's decisions have been in the past.
Gay marriage has been discriminated against for years, so what? This is today, please stop living in the past and realise that things are changing, you argue that the religious morals of 2000 years ago are still true and meaningful today, yes of course they are, of course they are a stable base for a happy family, but that does not inhibit the fact that some of the church's views are still 2000 years old and desperately need rethinking to fit in with today's modern society.
In the past gay marriages have occurred individually and been unrecognized and unsupported by the church, that means that the present day church shouldn't support gay marriage because...?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Anmon I'm not interested in reading about a guys view of what history was, and presenting it as fact when it wasn't.

Well, that answer was quite telling.

As far as I'm concerned, you've confirmed you're just another person with a point-of-view based primarily on unsupportable opinion and little fact. There's little challenge in debating folks like that. They're a dime a dozen. Full of hot air. No substance.

When you're ready to become a worthy debate opponent, I'll be here.

[Anmon]

Quote by: italiangm Well, that answer was quite telling. As far as I'm concerned, you've confirmed you're just another person with a point-of-view based primarily on unsupportable opinion and little fact. There's little challenge in debating folks like that. They're a dime a dozen. Full of hot air. No substance. When you're ready to become a worthy debate opponent, I'll be here.

Oh yeah like your pc influenced views on everything, are not based on unsupportable opinion and little fact.

[Derek Wolff]

You choose to be homosexual as you choose to be mentally unstable There is no proof of a homosexual gene despite wild accusations in the media which are toned down in the scientific community from 100% to 50%. These studies are based on homosexual family members, and homosexual twins in an attempt to verify a gene that each of them share. Of course they will have similiar genes, plus the same enviroment they grew up in so the gene is not verifiable. There have been recovered homosexual men, despite what you hear in the news. There has been a massive agenda to push the belief homosexuality is natural to curve discrimnation. I cannot blame them for this but it remains that homosexuality is a mental instability, a matter of choice, and curable. Frankly there are men who are perfectly happy with other men and do not wish to change. They just want to live in harmony, and I am willing to afford them that because it is not a destructive behaviour.

Homosexuality, and homosexual marriage should not be a issue discussed. It should be allowed, and it should not be cared about. Acceptance of homosexuality is a personal decision, however they do have the right to decide their partnership, and profession. Homosexuals should not be given tax write offs, that should remain for heterosexual couples that are creating a family. Homosexuals should not adopt very young children simply because of the danger of mental instability of the child.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Derek Wolff You choose to be homosexual as you choose to be mentally unstable There is no proof of a homosexual gene despite wild accusations in the media which are toned down in the scientific community from 100% to 50%. These studies are based on homosexual family members, and homosexual twins in an attempt to verify a gene that each of them share. Of course they will have similiar genes, plus the same enviroment they grew up in so the gene is not verifiable. There have been recovered homosexual men, despite what you hear in the news. There has been a massive agenda to push the belief homosexuality is natural to curve discrimnation. I cannot blame them for this but it remains that homosexuality is a mental instability, a matter of choice, and curable. Frankly there are men who are perfectly happy with other men and do not wish to change. They just want to live in harmony, and I am willing to afford them that because it is not a destructive behaviour.

That's one hell of a statement you've given us there, there are parts of that post that I will willingly concede, such as a homosexual gene, though I'm not willing to rule it out I think that people speculating about one are just wishful thinkers desperate to find a way to once and for all prove that it is not a choice.
What I do not agree with is the notion of "cured men", I could beat around the bush by saying that homosexuality is not an illness and cured isn't really the right word but that's wholely irrelevant; Until you can cite me a reliable source that proves the difference between a cured man and a bisexual in heavy denial then I find it difficult to believe also, once again I'm not denying it, just stating it's improbability.

Quote by: Derek Wolff Homosexuality, and homosexual marriage should not be a issue discussed. It should be allowed, and it should not be cared about. Acceptance of homosexuality is a personal decision, however they do have the right to decide their partnership, and profession. Homosexuals should not be given tax write offs, that should remain for heterosexual couples that are creating a family. Homosexuals should not adopt very young children simply because of the danger of mental instability of the child.

I thank you for your acceptance of homosexual marriage, but I refute the point that the homosexual community does not contribute to society to a point on which they are exempt from tax cuts that heterosexual couples have, obviously tax cuts for heterosexual couples based on the number of children should be denied homosexuals for more then obvious reasons, but still should be allowed for adoption.
It is simply discrimination to deny homosexual couples something when heterosexual couples doing the same thing(not having children) are allowed them.

[Tycoon]

You choose to be homosexual as you choose to be mentally unstable.

And you base this on what? I can tell you that homosexuality is not a choice, and I base that on my own personal experience as a gay.

There have been recovered homosexual men, despite what you hear in the news. There has been a massive agenda to push the belief homosexuality is natural to curve discrimnation. I cannot blame them for this but it remains that homosexuality is a mental instability, a matter of choice, and curable.

Any "recovered" homosexual men you think you know about probably only have "recovered" feelings because people want them to be "recovered" and want them to think that they are.

Homosexuality is not a choice.

[gela]

So Ive observed, a gay mardigras unfortunately goes through my neighborhood, proof of what homosexuals are spreading as normal, which is sleaze to the rest of society.

You are defining homosexuality as sleazy because of the madi gra; and precilla queen of the desert(Im guessing).

I suggest you turn on the TV on a saturday morning and watch video hits (music video tv show).
Have a look at the hetrosexual sleaze that is happening everyday; and considered to norm in todays society.

You really can't compare an annual event, and 1 movie, to the constant hetrosexual sleaze that is produced and released every day via mass media.
And if you think that homosexuality is only about sex - I suggest you investigate the play boy mansion, and listen to several hip hop songs out their based souly on lust.

[Darebirth]

I would like to issue a challenge to all who are opposed to gay marriage, and even if you are for the idea and just want to challenge me, to provide me with one good, logical, well-constructed reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to be married. I'll be waiting.

[Jack]

There have been recovered homosexual men, despite what you hear in the news.

How about studies and findings?

"Reparative therapy." The mass media and the Web are filled with claims these days from religious conservatives, orthodox psychoanalysts, anti-gay organizations, and even a professional football player claiming that people with a homosexual orientation not only can become heterosexual, but also should do so. However, claims by the Family Research Council, Charles Socarides, Joseph Nicolosi, and others of "successful" conversions through reparative therapy are filled with methodological ambiguities and questionable results (for reviews, see Haldeman, 1991, 1994; see also Haldeman's 1999 review paper is available on the web in HTML and Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format). They are also ethically suspect. [Bibliographic references are on a different web page] In many of these behavior-change techniques, "success" has been defined as suppression of homoerotic response or mere display of physiological ability to engage in heterosexual intercourse. Neither outcome is the same as adopting the complex set of attractions and feelings that constitute sexual orientation. Many interventions aimed at changing sexual orientation have succeeded only in reducing or eliminating homosexual behavior rather than in creating or increasing heterosexual attractions. They have, in effect, deprived individuals of their capacity for sexual response to others. These "therapies" have often exposed their victims to electric shocks or nausea-producing drugs while showing them pictures of same-sex nudes (such techniques appear to be less common today than in the past). Another problem in many published reports of "successful" conversion therapies is that the participants' initial sexual orientation was never adequately assessed. Many bisexuals have been mislabeled as homosexuals with the consequence that the "successes" reported for the conversions actually have occurred among bisexuals who were highly motivated to adopt a heterosexual behavior pattern. The extent to which people have actually changed their behavior – even within the confines of these inadequate operational definitions – often has not been systematically assessed. Instead, only self reports of patients or therapists' subjective impressions have been available. More rigorous objective assessments (e.g., behavioral indicators over an extended period of time) have been lacking (Coleman, 1982; Haldeman, 1991, 1994; Martin, 1984).1 Some psychoanalysts claim to have conducted empirical research demonstrating that their "therapies" are able to change gay people into heterosexuals. Their studies have multiple flaws, including a lack of safeguards against bias and a lack of control groups. Rather than having patients evaluated by an independent third party who is unaware of which patients received the "reparative therapy," these studies are simply compilations of self-reports from psychoanalysts who are attempting to change their patients' sexual orientation (and who are highly motivated to report "success").

Facts About Changing Sexual Orientation

You can also check out these resources:

# Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation, a revealing analysis by Dr. Gregory M. Herek, which finds that such attempts are a failure and unethical. # APA discourages use of "reparative therapy" - the position of the largest association of psychologists in the world on attempts to "cure" homosexuals. Such attempts are discouraged. # The American Psychiatric Association's Position Statement on therapies focused on attempts to change sexual orientation. # Why Reparative Therapy and Ex-Gay Ministries Fail, an illuminating report by Kim I. Mills, Human Rights Campaign. # A Critical Evaluation of Attempts to "Cure" Homosexuality, an essay by Dr. Niclas Berggren which takes a closer look at "reparative therapy" and concludes that one should be warned of it. # The Pseudo-Science of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy, by Dr. Douglas C. Haldeman. # They've Changed, So They Say, a note on the ex-gay claims, by Dr. Andrew Sullivan. # Finally Free: How Love and Self-Acceptance Saved Us from the Ex-Gay Ministries, personal stories from people who have tried to change their sexual orientation but realized that this cannot be done. Strong reading. (PDF-file; if you don't have Adobe Acrobat, which is needed to access this document, download it for free here.) # Finding a Real Cure, the personal story of 21-year-old Wade Richards, who used to be part of the ex-gay movement. # The Ex Files: Not Your Usual Gays, a revealing essay by Mark Pietzryk on some leaders of the "ex-gay" movement. # Do Homosexuals Need to Be Healed of Their Homosexuality?, a question explored by Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson. # How Does Psychoanalysis View Homosexuality?, a clarifying letter from Dr. Ralph Rouhgton of The American Psychoanalytic Association, which does not embrace the views of NARTH. # Conversion Therapy Does Not Work, a collection of citations documenting this. # The Real Changes Taking Place in the Ex-Gay Movement" Dr. Ralph Blair takes a closer look at the "ex-gay" movement, often run by Christians, who claim that it is possible to change. The findings reveal that there is no basis for such a claim. # Ex-Gay Nomad, a refreshing site by people who are former ex-gays. # Introduction to Reparative Therapy, a good overview of the problems with "ex-gay" claims. # Fact or Friction?, an article which interviews "ex-ex-gays" who reveal what "ex-gay" organizations are all about. # "Psychologist says efforts to 'cure' homosexuality can cause lasting damage", an article from The Detroit News. # The Bible as Medicine: Bible and Prayer as Miraculous Cure against Homosexuality", a text by the priest and doctoral student Lars Gaardfeldt of the University of Gothenburg, which describes and analyzes the teachings of Christian "healer" Leanne Payne. # Changing Sexual Orientation: Does Counseling Work? - a clinical study of the effects of attempts to change a person's sexual orientation. If you have been a party to such attempts in the US, do not hesitate to contact the researchers through this site!

Is it possible to change from gay to straight?