Homosexual Marriage

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Halo Then heterosexual couples also shouldn't recieve tax benefits until they have a child.

That about sums it up.

If the issue is truly about providing stable support for children, children should be the determining factor; not marriage. Even if gays do get to marry, the system is still not fair. Unmarried couples who are equal in every other way to married couples don't get the same tax breaks, and a married couple without a child gets the same tax breaks as a married couple with a child. The system can never be fair. Scrapping the whole ridiculous process is the best way to deal with the injustices therein; not expanding it.

[BorisTheFerret]

I'm all in favour of gay marriage, so long as the butch dyke shaves on the morning of the wedding.

[Anmon]

Quote by: BorisTheFerret I'm all in favour of gay marriage, so long as the butch dyke shaves on the morning of the wedding.

hahaha yech! ugly short haired gorilla women wearing glasses usually, most of them look like their faces got set on fire and put out with a shovel.

[BorisTheFerret]

Quote by: Anmon hahaha yech! ugly short haired gorilla women wearing glasses usually, most of them look like their faces got set on fire and put out with a shovel.

Haha. I was at a lesbian wedding between two beavers once. Very hairy.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Tycoon Then don't. It seems to me you are dragging out a debate of the finer points in this issue, rather than looking at the big picture of discrimination. There are plenty of other threads to debate on anyways.

It's good fun, just difficult, which in a way makes it more fun, it also has opened my eyes to how desperate homophobes are to rationalize their phobias when they come up with this stuff.

[Tycoon]

I'm all in favour of gay marriage, so long as the butch dyke shaves on the morning of the wedding.

Your sense of humor reveals your ignorance. The sterotype of butch/fem in gays is just that, only a stereotype.

hahaha yech! ugly short haired gorilla women wearing glasses usually, most of them look like their faces got set on fire and put out with a shovel.

Enjoy the banhammer Anmon!

[Tycoon]

It's good fun, just difficult, which in a way makes it more fun, it also has opened my eyes to how desperate homophobes are to rationalize their phobias when they come up with this stuff.

Well, you and Winter can continue to duke it out if you like, but I'm staying out of it.

[BorisTheFerret]

Oh dear, an angry beaver. I'd better get out of the forest sharpish.

[Matt W]

Boris, this is a debate site. Enough of the one-liners. Contribute or don't post.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Tycoon Your sense of humor reveals your ignorance. The sterotype of butch/fem in gays is just that, only a stereotype.

Aside from the thing me and WW are kind of doing, the stereotype must originate from somewhere. Also there are many theories that could support the idea of butch lesbians and femministic male homosexuals.
I don't agree with them, but there are a lot of people that do.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: yourmaster Gah this is hard, I've spent my whole life explaining to people why it's all ok and now I have to try and say why it shouldn't be.

Trust me, your doing a good job. (got me on the ropes on some parts).

Well I lack a copy of those journals so I'll trust your word that those citations are correct.

I actually was talking to my boss about these journals (I intern at the Cold Spring Harbor Lab in new york during the summer). Not these in particular, but a similar study. Seems there is a bit of a consensus in the science community.

Do I really need to go through citation about testosterone levels in male homosexuals?

wait, just tell me whether they are lower or the same and I'll just take your word for it. (I'm not sure how much of an effect they have).

Again exactly my point, the figures you gave, which I need to add on I concede, showed both heterosexual and homosexual marriage stability, they showed that heterosexual marriages last longer, you then called for figures that were not only marriage, then I said that marriage was the best level standpoint for the figures, that's where we're at at the moment, this is a tangeant about figure reliability not homosexual marriage.

A circle!

but really, does anyone have any proof that homosexual relationships last longer/shorter/same then heterosexual relationships.

Or check out the Scandinavian countries to find out the rates of divorce.

And even if it did...what difference would it make. Do we deny a group equal rights based on a 7% difference?

Gay Marriage Statistics - Gay Weddings - Same Sex Weddings | Love And Pride See point no.3

Alright I see the stats.

I don't think this is an issue, mostly because homosexual couples wouldn't exist without homosexual marriage, but they could still adopt kids. (the only think that is affected by divorce.)

Quote by: tycoon Well, you and Winter can continue to duke it out if you like, but I'm staying out of it.

shame, I would have loved your input. (plus, looking at boris, I think we are the lesser of two evils)

Regardless, what should we argue about today? :3

[yourmaster]

Alright lets bring this back.

We started off talking about population and evolutionary heuristics, so lets return to that.

Homosexuals do not procreate, fact. 10% decrease in reproduction should not be supported by the goverment or anyone else. Of course the homosexuals would not reproduce anyway, but it does not mean it should be encouraged by granting them marriage rights. They do not contribute so well to society as well as heterosexual couples with children because of this and therefore are not as deserving of rights as heterosexual couples with children.
My arguement has never been against homosexual marriage, but to deny them rights that heterosexual couples have on account of their refusal to procreate. The same should go for heterosexual couples who do not, for whatever reason have children.
They are refuting what is commonly accepted to be the main evolutionary heuristic, this is not excusable, though their actions are not going to destroy the human race they are not beneficial either and in doing so are lowering their rights. If the world was to suffer suddenly from drastic population drops then homosexual's actions will have lowered the human race's chances of survival, granted this is not in the forseeable future, but the point remains.


Then we talked about bullying and how this links in with adoption.

Adopted children of homosexuals will face major problems in life they would not face if raised by a heterosexual couple. The fact remains that homosexuals are commonly discriminated against and face hardships far greater then that of heterosexuals.
I concede this is because of the actions of bigoted heterosexuals, but this cannot be changed quickly and in the meantime actions must be taken to keep innocent children from having to face those hardships unnecessarily.

Then we talked about the strength of homosexual marriages and two citations have agreed that homosexual marriages are not as strong as heterosexual marriages.
Ideally we would have figures that show heterosexual marriages without children to compare to, but we do not.
Whatever the cause of the unreliability of homosexual marriages in comparison to heterosexual marriages the point remains the same, they are and law must take it into account.
I would like to point out that if a couple stays together for 5 or so years for the children then gets divorced, this will not have an effect on the figures of divorce rates over a long period of time.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: Winter wind I actually was talking to my boss about these journals (I intern at the Cold Spring Harbor Lab in new york during the summer). Not these in particular, but a similar study. Seems there is a bit of a consensus in the science community.

The concensus in the psychological community is similar, few claim to have found evironmental links to homosexuality and instead most agree to temperament. May the previous sentence be stricken from the record as I am only saying it to inform, not as part of my arguement and wouldn't say it if I genuinely believed the things I am writing.*shrugs*

Quote by: Winter wind wait, just tell me whether they are lower or the same and I'll just take your word for it. (I'm not sure how much of an effect they have).

Testosterone levels are equal within homosexual men as with heterosexual men, which successfully eliminates thesis of femminity in homosexual men.

I quote myself:

The study that was to show that homosexuals were more girly is yet to be replicated (Barlow, D. et al., 1974): Compared the plasma testosterone values for 15 15-35 yr old male homosexuals of Kinsey rating 5 or 6 with the values reported by R. C. Kolodny et al (see record 1972-11202-001), who had found male homosexuals to have lower testosterone values than heterosexuals. The values for the present Ss were significantly higher than those reported by Kolodny et al. In fact, the mean values for the current sample did not differ from the mean value reported by Kolodny et al for heterosexual (Kinsey rating 0 or 1) controls. The present findings thus fail to confirm the relation between degree of homosexuality and plasma testosterone level.

Quote by: Winter wind A circle! but really, does anyone have any proof that homosexual relationships last longer/shorter/same then heterosexual relationships. Or check out the Scandinavian countries to find out the rates of divorce. And even if it did...what difference would it make. Do we deny a group equal rights based on a 7% difference?

I do not seek to deny, but to adapt laws based on these figures and other points.

Quote by: Winter wind Alright I see the stats. I don't think this is an issue, mostly because homosexual couples wouldn't exist without homosexual marriage, but they could still adopt kids. (the only think that is affected by divorce.)

Homosexual couples would exist without marriage, merely not married.xP

Quote by: Winter wind shame, I would have loved your input. (plus, looking at boris, I think we are the lesser of two evils) Regardless, what should we argue about today? :3

I would have enjoyed tycoon's input as well. A shame.

[Tycoon]

shame, I would have loved your input. (plus, looking at boris, I think we are the lesser of two evils)

I would have enjoyed tycoon's input as well. A shame.

Very well.

Homosexuals do not procreate, fact. 10% decrease in reproduction should not be supported by the goverment or anyone else. Of course the homosexuals would not reproduce anyway, but it does not mean it should be encouraged by granting them marriage rights. They do not contribute so well to society as well as heterosexual couples with children because of this and therefore are not as deserving of rights as heterosexual couples with children.

The truth is that marriage and procreation are mutually exclusive things. Marriage often does not result in procreation, and procreation often occurs without marriage. In regards to benefits, the answer is simple. If there are additional benefits for having children, then they should be given to the homosexual couples that adopt or use surrogate mothers as well. If certain benefits are granted to couples regardless of whether or not they have children, they should be given to homosexual couples as well. My solution is that special benefits should be given to any couple with children, and less benefits to couples without children, rather than giving all the benefits to heterosexual couples regardless of procreation and less to homosexual couples regardless of procreation.

Adopted children of homosexuals will face major problems in life they would not face if raised by a heterosexual couple. The fact remains that homosexuals are commonly discriminated against and face hardships far greater then that of heterosexuals.

I very much doubt that the children of a homosexual couple would advertise that fact around their school. Ideally, only their friends would know. Either way, if a child was picked on or bullied they could always change schools or be privately schooled.

Whatever the cause of the unreliability of homosexual marriages in comparison to heterosexual marriages the point remains the same, they are and law must take it into account.

I too have always had a hard time picturing myself in a lasting relationship. But the truth is, the reason you don't see many long lasting homosexual relationships right now is because those people were discriminated against a lot when they were my age. Most homosexuals of the middle-age time period probably remain in the closet. I think the statistic will rize, and I have no doubt that granting homosexual marriage would help it rize.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: mast Whatever the cause of the unreliability of homosexual marriages in comparison to heterosexual marriages the point remains the same, they are and law must take it into account.

I recall reading somewhere that ethnic minority couples have much more stable marriages than white couples. Should we then ban whites from getting married?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: yourmaster Testosterone levels are equal within homosexual men as with heterosexual men, which successfully eliminates thesis of femminity in homosexual men.

I thought that might have been the case. I wasn't sure though.

I do not seek to deny, but to adapt laws based on these figures and other points.

ty's right. The fundamental issue here isn't really whether it's environmental or not, but rather why we should or should not have homosexual marriage.

This revolves around whether homosexuality is actually a choice. No self-respecting science journal I know of says that homosexuality is a choice. Therefore, it shouldn't be considered different then heterosexual marriage.

Homosexual couples would exist without marriage, merely not married.xP

African Americans are more likely to be incarcerated or murdered then Caucasians. Should that mean that African Americans receive a lesser legal status then white people?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Wind Quote by: Mast Testosterone levels are equal within homosexual men as with heterosexual men, which successfully eliminates thesis of femminity in homosexual men. I thought that might have been the case. I wasn't sure though.

The femmininity theory, as I've heard it, doesn't relate to hormones in the adult homosexual, but rather to prenatal hormones.

"As fetuses, Pillard points out, human beings of both sexes start out with complete female and male "anlages," or precursors of the basic interior sexual equipment—vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes for women, and vas deferens, seminal vesicles, and ejaculatory ducts for men. These packages are called the Mullerian (female) and Wolffian (male) ducts, and are tubes of tissue located in the lower abdomen. How do the sexual organs develop? It happens differently in men and women. At the moment of conception an embryo is given its chromosomal sex, which determines whether it will develop testes or ovaries. In female human beings (as in female rats) the female structures will simply develop, without any help from hormones; the Wolffian duct will shrivel up. The process of becoming male, however, is more complex. Where women need none, men need two kinds of hormones: androgens from the testes to prompt the Wolffian duct into development, and a second substance, called Mullerian inhibiting hormone, to suppress the Mullerian duct and defeminize the male fetus. Pillard speculates that Mullerian inhibiting hormone, or a substance analogous to it, may have brain-organizing effects. Its absence or failure to kick in sufficiently may prevent the brain from defeminizing, thereby creating what Pillard calls "psychosexual androgyny." In this view, gay men are basically masculine males with female aspects, including perhaps certain cognitive abilities and emotional sensibilities. Lesbian women could be understood as women who have some biologically induced masculine aspects. An experimental basis is provided by research by the psychiatrist Richard Green, of the University of California at Los Angeles, which shows that children who manifest aspects of gender-atypical play are often gay. Green has concluded that an inclination toward gender-atypical play in prepubescent boys—for example, dressing in women's clothes, playing with dolls, or taking the role of the mother when playing house—indicates a homosexual orientation 75 percent of the time. If that is true, it is important, because it would be an example of a trait linked to sexual orientation which does not involve sexual behavior—suggesting how deeply rooted sexual orientation is. Discussing this line of research, Simon LeVay told me, "It's well known from animal work that sex-typical play behavior is under hormonal control. Robert Goy [at the University of Wisconsin at Madison] has done many studies over the years showing that you can reverse the sex-typical play behavior of infant monkeys by hormonal manipulations in prenatal life. [Play] is an example of a sex-reversed trait in gay people that's not directly related to sex. It's not sex, it's play. When you get to adulthood, these things become blurred. It's easier to tell a gay kid than a gay adult--kids are much of a muchness. Most gay men, even those who are very macho as adults, recall at least some gender-atypical behavior as children."" Source

[Winter wind]

Thanks Bacon Guy. This is going to be useful.

[yourmaster]

I thank you for not answering the whole post and just the bits that suited you.

Quote by: Tycoon The truth is that marriage and procreation are mutually exclusive things. Marriage often does not result in procreation, and procreation often occurs without marriage. In regards to benefits, the answer is simple. If there are additional benefits for having children, then they should be given to the homosexual couples that adopt or use surrogate mothers as well.

This point about homosexual couples adopting really needs to be left until the point about adoption has been resolved, it all hinges around that. I will never adopt because the welfare of the child has to come first and I don't think adopting a child would do the child any good at all.

Quote by: Tycoon If certain benefits are granted to couples regardless of whether or not they have children, they should be given to homosexual couples as well. My solution is that special benefits should be given to any couple with children, and less benefits to couples without children, rather than giving all the benefits to heterosexual couples regardless of procreation and less to homosexual couples regardless of procreation.

I am reluctant to go as far as saying that homosexual have limited contributions to society, but indeed in their refusal to procreate they are not contributing to society equally, as a whole, to society. Granted many homosexuals to beneift society massively, the main figure in cracking the enigma code was homosexual. However as a whole they do not contribute so well. :-/

Quote by: Tycoon I very much doubt that the children of a homosexual couple would advertise that fact around their school. Ideally, only their friends would know. Either way, if a child was picked on or bullied they could always change schools or be privately schooled.

Hiding the fact that you have homosexual parents is extremely difficult, eventually it would be found out and the vast majority of children would have to unnecessarily face bullying because of it. Depending on the area the homosexual adoptive parents could even be putting the child's life at risk.

Quote by: Tycoon I too have always had a hard time picturing myself in a lasting relationship. But the truth is, the reason you don't see many long lasting homosexual relationships right now is because those people were discriminated against a lot when they were my age. Most homosexuals of the middle-age time period probably remain in the closet. I think the statistic will rise, and I have no doubt that granting homosexual marriage would help it rise.

That would be all very well and valid if we were talking in numbers not percentages.

[yourmaster]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy The femmininity theory, as I've heard it, doesn't relate to hormones in the adult homosexual, but rather to prenatal hormones.

Perchance you have a correlation between homosexuality and cross gender traits, but you cannot begin to label it as a cause, a causational factor maybe. I am a very masculing homosexual, my femminities stretching no further then a white belt, which I am told is a woman's colour for belts.
I find figures of 75% of homosexuals show femmmine traits frankly unbelievable, of the people I know that are homosexual perhaps 2 are iffemminate, two of about 25. Those are just the ones I know well.