disorder of assumption

[_Amore]

1. What evidence can you give that heterosexuality is an innate characteristic?

First - I did not claim that it was, did I? Second - It is an easy claim to make. The theory of evolution requires heterosexual activity, does it not?
So, if we believe that the will to survive, or that a species fundamentally reproduces, is an "innate characteristic" then heterosexual activity is natural....innate.

2. What evidence can you give that The Gay Agenda causes many non-human species to display examples of homosexual behaviour?

Psychological defects and minority occurrences of defective behavior is not a sole human characteristic. Other animals murder each other, other animals commit infanticide, other animals are born blind, other animals are even born with severe behavioral abnormalities....none of that merits their condition as being virtuous, preferred, desirable, etc.
However, among humans...
the New Family Structures Study, which is famous and controversial-because-it-contradicts-HRC-money-message, led by Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas at Austin, found that children raised by homosexual parents are dramatically more likely than peers raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from a host of social problems. Among them are strong tendencies, as adults, to exhibit poor impulse control; suffer from depression and thoughts of suicide; need mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.

Nevertheless, the idea that because a behavior or characteristic is found within another animal must surely make that behavior or characteristic natural among humans is absurd. If a human was born today and a full ivory tusk was protruding from its nose no one would be blamed for considering that "unnatural"....and no one would argue that since the rhinoceros has one, it must be considered natural. Chances are, doctors would examine it and try to "correct" the situation - even it only posed a cosmetic challenge to the human in question.

Even more to the point is recognizing that marriage, as a legal contract, is bound to sexual activity - so obviously society legislates sexual activity and raises some sexual activity to the level of being more virtuous, more natural, and more worthy than other sexual activity. Currently I have not seen, heard, nor read any argument that elevates same sex activity to that level.....and certainly the idea that SSM should be permitted because a small minority of monkeys are caught is homosexual activity after throwing their poo at zoo visitors is not convincing on any level.

Impressive!
And it supports many other studies, besides axiomatic truth.
It simply amazes me how some otherwise intelligent people are so brainwashed by the homosexual herd mentality that they deny such basic truths as how they came to exist.

Maybe like my husband said, they know they're wrong, but search desperately for straws, to shift the blame to make themselves feel more right.

It's as if they go from singing "Follow the prophet"... To "Follow the Liberals!"

[Guest]

1. What evidence can you give that heterosexuality is an innate characteristic?

First - I did not claim that it was, did I? Second - It is an easy claim to make. The theory of evolution requires heterosexual activity, does it not?
So, if we believe that the will to survive, or that a species fundamentally reproduces, is an "innate characteristic" then heterosexual activity is natural....innate.

'Will to survive' and 'reproduces' are not synonyms, nor do they limit sexual activity itself to a particular standard. So, we can toss aside use of the word, 'innate', as an argument for or against gay behavior in critters.

2. What evidence can you give that The Gay Agenda causes many non-human species to display examples of homosexual behaviour?

Psychological defects and minority occurrences of defective behavior is not a sole human characteristic. Other animals murder each other, other animals commit infanticide, other animals are born blind, other animals are even born with severe behavioral abnormalities....none of that merits their condition as being virtuous, preferred, desirable, etc.

Interesting list. I must admit to not seeing a lot of animal murder occur except when one eats another (the Way Things Are). They generally don't get their jollies out of simply killing each other, like we do. Same for animal infanticide. Regardless, either - along with blindness and other abnormalities - may not be virtuous, preferred or desirable as we see it, but this is a personal judgement, is it not? Perhaps you'd like to argue with the lion after killing the antelope for his meal that he was not virtuous in doing so. He may beg to differ. But we digress.

However, among humans...
the New Family Structures Study, which is famous and controversial-because-it-contradicts-HRC-money-message, led by Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas at Austin, found that children raised by homosexual parents are dramatically more likely than peers raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from a host of social problems. Among them are strong tendencies, as adults, to exhibit poor impulse control; suffer from depression and thoughts of suicide; need mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.

1. The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families comes to a completely different conclusion. How do you reconcile this?

2. Regardless, this paragraph concerns children raised within G/L-partner households. This would have no bearing on s/s marriages themselves, should that be the question.

Nevertheless, the idea that because a behavior or characteristic is found within another animal must surely make that behavior or characteristic natural among humans is absurd.

As the behavior is found within so many higher-order critters, it is a natural occurrence. Perhaps not the predominant mode of coupling, but not unnatural. Natural is defined as, "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind". Use of the word, 'natural', as some kind of argument against s/s relationships therefore fails at the outset. Methinks that the term is being conflated for 'preferred', or 'typical', or somesuch.

if a human was born today and a full ivory tusk was protruding from its nose no one would be blamed for considering that "unnatural"....and no one would argue that since the rhinoceros has one, it must be considered natural. Chances are, doctors would examine it and try to "correct" the situation - even it only posed a cosmetic challenge to the human in question.

It would still be a natural occurrence... not necessarily preferred by our own standards of beauty, practicality or normality, but one that occurred naturally nonetheless. See previous paragraph.

Even more to the point is recognizing that marriage, as a legal contract, is bound to sexual activity - so obviously society legislates sexual activity and raises some sexual activity to the level of being more virtuous, more natural, and more worthy than other sexual activity. Currently I have not seen, heard, nor read any argument that elevates same sex activity to that level.....

1. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that requires that marriage must be bound to sexual activity of any type to be allowed; i.e., one cannot be married unless one engages in sexual activity?

2. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that requires that all sexual activity between two individuals in a marriage is limited to the purpose of procreation?

3. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that denies marriage between two people based solely on the fact that they cannot or may not choose to have sexual relations for the sole purpose of creating children?

and certainly the idea that SSM should be permitted because a small minority of monkeys are caught is homosexual activity after throwing their poo at zoo visitors is not convincing on any level.

I don't think that I've seen this argument of 'poo flinging = allow s/s marriage' from anyone, ever. Can you elaborate?

[_canpakes]

Impressive!
And it supports many other studies, besides axiomatic truth.
It simply amazes me how some otherwise intelligent people are so brainwashed by the homosexual herd mentality that they deny such basic truths as how they came to exist.

Maybe like my husband said, they know they're wrong, but search desperately for straws, to shift the blame to make themselves feel more right.

It's as if they go from singing "Follow the prophet"... To "Follow the Liberals!"

I like to follow biology. : )

By the way - I was curious, a few posts back, about the 'special rights' that you were referring to with regards to s/s marriage or other s/s activity. Do you have a list of some of these?

[_SteelHead]

And canpakes gives sub a lesson on the coherent use of language.

Kudos canpakes!

[_just me]

The discussion about children raised in gay vs straight homes is not really pertinent to the discussion of the right to marry since marriage is not necessary for child raising and child raising is not necessary in a marriage.



Neil Patrick Harris and his husband didn't need a marriage certificate to have babies. But I am so happy for their new marriage and wish them every happiness.

[_just me]

The argument that homosexuality is some kind of mental illness or disease also does not have any bearing on the right for homosexuals to marry.
We allow people with all mental illnesses and diseases to marry. Society allows all consenting adults to have sex. We allow people with mental illness and disease to have babies and raise children. We even allow people with genetic disorders that are certain to be passed to a child to procreate.

In the healthcare field we are taught that consumers have a basic right to sexual expression. Even in long-term care facilities people can have consensual sex with another regardless of sex or marital status. And they are far beyond childbearing years.

Society allows all these things regardless of the emotional, financial or health risks involved.

We've already talked about the risk inherent in ANY sexual contact. There are various levels of risk and we still don't police individual adults on what they choose to engage in. Many straight couples engage in anal sex. Many straight couples have sex where one is positive for an STI and the other is not.
The risks to a woman in reproducing are not limited to physical, as it also impacts her emotional health and finances. That is true regardless of her marital status.

[_just me]

Allowing trans individuals to transition is not going to make someone who is not trans want to become so. That is ridiculous.

Assisting a trans individual in transitioning through whatever means they feel comfortable, from dressing to full surgery, is the most compassionate answer. Not only that, they are adults who can choose for themselves what they want to do to their body. Trust me, a lot goes into choosing a candidate for reassignment surgery. It's not like they hand them out to anyone walking in the door. They go through evaluations to make sure this is the best choice for them.

Regardless of what is involved in being transexual, society doesn't disallow people with body dysmorphia from having cosmetic surgery.

[_subgenius]

I gathered that subgenius probably has cited the extremely flawed and widely condemned Regnerus study in the past. I imagined some people probably took the time to explain in detail what is wrong with it:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... mit=Search

Yep. Repeatedly.

So I don't think you can look at the above post as anything but intellectually dishonest at this point.

even a cursory review of these criticisms will find that they are not unlike the criticisms research receives, even on the other side of this argument. The Regnerus study was merely inflammatory because it bucked the heavily funded Hillary Clinton message machine.
And, as has been posted several times before...there are several more studies that reach similar conclusions.
Point being, the bulk of the actual scientific community cannot refute the bulk of his study.
The only dishonesty here is that your post is reactionary and uninformed on the topic...study the subject yourself and then return and report.
(i got an inclination that you have not even read one page of the Regnerus study...and that my friend is the best display of disingenuity to date).

[_subgenius]

They generally don't get their jollies out of simply killing each other, like we do.

we generally do not either...which was the initial point...generally speaking, animals do not engage in homosexual behavior.

1. The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families comes to a completely different conclusion. How do you reconcile this?

As usual...in the case of conflicting "studies" which is not that uncommon...i believe a rational resolution is reached by determining what is the "best interest of the child". So, you seem to consider that given ambiguity or uncertainty about the safety and welfare of a child, society should allow the situation to play out...and see what happens...hope for the best.
My resolution is that given the broad range of variables that seemingly increase risk for a child in a same-sex environment - that we proceed with caution and currently discourage that exposure.

2. Regardless, this paragraph concerns children raised within G/L-partner households. This would have no bearing on s/s marriages themselves, should that be the question.

Awfully dismissive of you here...but see my previous response as well. Obviously you feel that marriage yields a magic wand, welcome.

As the behavior is found within so many higher-order critters, it is a natural occurrence. Perhaps not the predominant mode of coupling, but not unnatural. Natural is defined as, "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind". Use of the word, 'natural', as some kind of argument against s/s relationships therefore fails at the outset. Methinks that the term is being conflated for 'preferred', or 'typical', or somesuch.

I have often stated that if we concede homosexual behavior as being "natural" or even genetic, then it must surely be a defect.....like alcoholism or Down's syndrome. Again, it being natural or unnatural has never been my cause for objection to SSM.
But me thinks that quibbling about the literal meaning and common use of the word "natural" is not a source of victory for either of us.

It would still be a natural occurrence... not necessarily preferred by our own standards of beauty, practicality or normality, but one that occurred naturally nonetheless. See previous paragraph.

which is the point i am making....natural or not is irrelevant to my position...you are mistaking my arguments for another's. In the truest sense of the word, everything could be deemed "natural".
(I am reminded of a Dead Milkmen song wherein the lyric about the periodic chart containing elements has a few "man-made" elements...and the singer asks..."if they are man-made, then how the hell can they be elements?")

1. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that requires that marriage must be bound to sexual activity of any type to be allowed; i.e., one cannot be married unless one engages in sexual activity?

I believe you will find that many states allow for marriage contracts to be dissolved and even grounds for divorce being granted on the grounds of non consummation and or not providing sexual activity to one's spouse. This distinction is made within the no-fault or fault divorce.
Legal separation agreements can also be considered violated if a couple continues to have sexual relations while it is in effect.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5cLIO2 ... &q&f=false
"Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this)."
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/marria ... ants.shtml

2. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that requires that all sexual activity between two individuals in a marriage is limited to the purpose of procreation?

No, but that is not my proposition. However, though not required today, blood tests use to be required because of concern for passing along birth defects...and incestuous marriages are not permitted - even between consenting adults.

3. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that denies marriage between two people based solely on the fact that they cannot or may not choose to have sexual relations for the sole purpose of creating children?

this one for starters

I don't think that I've seen this argument of 'poo flinging = allow s/s marriage' from anyone, ever. Can you elaborate?

sure...something being observed in nature does not justify it being regarded as virtuous in society, regardless of its frequency.
For example

[_subgenius]

The argument that homosexuality is some kind of mental illness or disease also does not have any bearing on the right for homosexuals to marry.

mental wellness has influence on everyone's right to marry
http://hamptonroads.com/2014/09/marriag ... gal-issues