Ten years of "gay marriage"

[zelder]

Fail.

Blacks can't choose to change their skin color, people with homosexuals feelings can choose not enage in homosexual behavior.

I agree, this is a comparison of apples and oranges.

[semlogo]

Fail.

Blacks can't choose to change their skin color, people with homosexuals feelings can choose not enage in homosexual behavior.

Fail.

Gays can't choose to be straight. People who want to marry outside their race can choose not to. See how that works?

[ELF1024]

Fail.

Gays can't choose to be straight. People who want to marry outside their race can choose not to. See how that works?

New research is showing that homosexuality is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and not genes. That being the case, being "gay" may be more closely realted to depression, and thus a disease, and not a genetic feature. So FAIL.

[Stargazer]

I suppose one might consider ten years to be long enough to adequately measure the societal impact of a practice, except that it probably depends upon the nature of the practice.

China's one-child law, for instance, seems to have caused a large disparity in the male:female ratio in younger adults. But this effect of the law, instituted in 1978, would not have been quite so noticeable merely ten years into the law's history. "According to a report by the State Population and Family Planning Commission, there will be 30 million more men than women in 2020, potentially leading to social instability, and courtship-motivated emigration." at Wikipedia.

[Jaybear]

FWIW, abuse, especially violent abuse, is higher in homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships.

CFR. Make sure you compare gay couples that live together out of wedlock, and heterosexual that live together out of wedlock.

Likewise be sure to compare violence among gay couples that marry to those that live together, and the same for heterosexuals.

I think you may have unwittingly stumbled into another in a long list of rational reasons why gays should be allowed to marry.

[semlogo]

New research is showing that homosexuality is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and not genes. That being the case, being "gay" may be more closely realted to depression, and thus a disease, and not a genetic feature. So FAIL.

I saw that link. It doesn't matter whether that's true or not, being gay still isn't a choice, whether chemical or genetic or both. And do you think gay people haven't been treated for depression before? Did any of them magically become straight?

[ELF1024]

I saw that link. It doesn't matter whether that's true or not, being gay still isn't a choice, whether chemical or genetic or both. And do you think gay people haven't been treated for depression before? Did any of them magically become straight?

I haven't seen research on it, I would be interested to find some. I would think that it would be the same percentage of people who magically became homosexual after a lifetime of being hetrosexual.

[Stargazer]

I saw that link. It doesn't matter whether that's true or not, being gay still isn't a choice, whether chemical or genetic or both. And do you think gay people haven't been treated for depression before? Did any of them magically become straight?

The magic is gone. I think you got tripped up with the comparison to treatment for depression and treatment for gayness. I don't think he was saying that treating a gay man for depression would make him straight.

Eh, I am afraid I agree with you, finally. At least to the point that "gay still isn't a choice". My ADD could be controlled chemically, they tell me, but has there been a drug found that could reverse gayness? At least while taking the drug? If so, I haven't heard about it.

Edited to add this witticism: And if they did find a drug that would make a gay man straight, it would probably have the side-effect of making him unattractive to women.

[oats]

Link to courtroom proceedings for closing arguments in Canadian polygamy case

The arguments will be broadcast online by CBC and other media partners and will run roughly from 10 a.m. to noon and again from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. PT, Monday to Friday from March 28 to April 9.

[Ariarates]

As is typical in this debate, you miss the point. It's not about homosexual unions. They are irrelevant. It's the gov't adopting a dogma, which will influence the way people think, feel and consequently, behave.

OK, I did misunderstand. In my country, the government adopts the laws the people want or they get voted out of office. So that's the other way around from what you describe.

That said, if you really want to see abuse of children by homosexuals, just start promoting adoption and loosening adoption rules for homosexual males. That would not be pretty.

Actually, having or adopting children is the main reason gays get married over here. So far, I haven't heard of a single child abuse case by married homosexuals over the past ten years. I'm not saying that means it doesn't happen but it's not particularly rampant either. A case like that would certainly be picked up by the press. Moreover, what data I could find seems to suggest that the incidence of domestic violence among gays is about the same as that among straights.

Finally, a note to a number of posters who suggest that homosexuality is nurture rather than nature. I used to believe that too, until I read some research on the topic. After that I leaned toward nature but the research isn't unambiguous or conclusive from a scientific point of view. But then somebody asked me: if you think it's a choice, just imagine making it.

[ERMD]

If that homosexual is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.

Even the theology fits...

Wrong. If he does what you say, he will be exalted. Your comparison is incorrect and falls flat.

[Mordecai]

OK, I did misunderstand. In my country, the government adopts the laws the people want or they get voted out of office. So that's the other way around from what you describe.

Yeah, in your country... I guess. I don't know that the majority of Canadians would have voted in favor of the gay-marriage dogma, but now that it's in place, they'd be "taking away a right," so they're more inclined to be for it.

Actually, having or adopting children is the main reason gays get married over here.

Since most of those are going to be lesbian couples, it's unlikely we'll see a higher rate of abuse among them, seeing as females are less prone to violence.

A case like that would certainly be picked up by the press.

Why? Is your press conservative?

Moreover, what data I could find seems to suggest that the incidence of domestic violence among gays is about the same as that among straights.

Not among gay men.

Finally, a note to a number of posters who suggest that homosexuality is nurture rather than nature.

If you are an identical twin, and your twin is gay, there's a 50% chance you will be gay. Not 100% sure what that means, but it suggests there is something random occurring.

[Jaybear]

Yeah, in your country... I guess. I don't know that the majority of Canadians would have voted in favor of the gay-marriage dogma, but now that it's in place, they'd be "taking away a right," so they're more inclined to be for it.

Since you keep throwing out the word, dogma, could you please explain why you think the term applies in this context.

What factual belief do you think that I hold, that cannot be challenged?

[Stargazer]

Yeah, in your country... I guess. I don't know that the majority of Canadians would have voted in favor of the gay-marriage dogma, but now that it's in place, they'd be "taking away a right," so they're more inclined to be for it.

I'm sure he is capable of pointing it out himself, but his country isn't Canada, it is The Netherlands.

[Mordecai]

Since you keep throwing out the word, dogma, could you please explain why you think the term applies in this context.

What factual belief do you think that I hold, that cannot be challenged?

You apparently want the gov't to adopt the dogma that a gay union is the same as, or has no relevant differences from, a real marriage. You can't make a coherent argument for that, much less can you prove that. Yet, the left proclaims that "we are on the right side of history," as if they have foresight RIGHT NOW and that it's so morally correct, history will DEFINITELY take your side.

By definition, that makes it a dogma. Unprovable, incoherent and yet, authoritatively proclaimed to be True and Moral.

[Mordecai]

I'm sure he is capable of pointing it out himself, but his country isn't Canada, it is The Netherlands.

That's unusual. Really? Interesting.

[TAO]

I saw that link. It doesn't matter whether that's true or not, being gay still isn't a choice, whether chemical or genetic or both. And do you think gay people haven't been treated for depression before? Did any of them magically become straight?

Semlogo, being Autistic isn't a choice for me. Does that mean I choose not to deal with society because of it? Nah, it doesn't. A choice is involved in actions, and that is what matters. There will be no trial given you that is greater than you can overcome. We are given trials. Some may be hard. But they are our trials. They are our responsibility to overcome. What makes this trial any different?

[TAO]

Fail.

Gays can't choose to be straight. People who want to marry outside their race can choose not to. See how that works?

Actually, I think they can choose to be straight. Being straight is an action. They can choose that. You can't choose to remove the temptation, but you can choose not to submit to it.

A hard choice, but a good choice it would be to choose to be straight. I would support them all the way for it.

Also, something I have noticed. Self-Hypnosis would be rather good at convincing people that they did not have this temptation. It'd take work, but I think it'd be rather successful if learned how to do.

[Ariarates]

Yeah, in your country... I guess. I don't know that the majority of Canadians would have voted in favor of the gay-marriage dogma, but now that it's in place, they'd be "taking away a right," so they're more inclined to be for it.

About one third opposes gay marriage in my country.

Since most of those are going to be lesbian couples, it's unlikely we'll see a higher rate of abuse among them, seeing as females are less prone to violence.

I think the majority are going to be male couples because lesbian women can have children and will be recognized as their mother by the law. As I said before, the statistics seem to indicate that the incidence of domestic violence among gay couples is the same as among straight couples. Do you have data to the contrary?

Why? Is your press conservative?

Our press is free, meaning some is conservative, some is progressive, some is confessional, some is secular, etc.

If you are an identical twin, and your twin is gay, there's a 50% chance you will be gay. Not 100% sure what that means, but it suggests there is something random occurring.

It seems to suggest that there is a genetic component which does not appear to be absolute.

[semlogo]

Semlogo, being Autistic isn't a choice for me. Does that mean I choose not to deal with society because of it? Nah, it doesn't. A choice is involved in actions, and that is what matters. There will be no trial given you that is greater than you can overcome. We are given trials. Some may be hard. But they are our trials. They are our responsibility to overcome. What makes this trial any different?

There's no real scriptural basis to say that homosexuality is a sin, anymore than autism is a sin. How would you like to be labeled a sinner because of your autism?

[semlogo]

Actually, I think they can choose to be straight. Being straight is an action. They can choose that. You can't choose to remove the temptation, but you can choose not to submit to it.

A hard choice, but a good choice it would be to choose to be straight. I would support them all the way for it.

Also, something I have noticed. Self-Hypnosis would be rather good at convincing people that they did not have this temptation. It'd take work, but I think it'd be rather successful if learned how to do.

Here's the actual definition of homosexuality:

"Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender."

[ELF1024]

There's no real scriptural basis to say that homosexuality is a sin, anymore than autism is a sin. How would you like to be labeled a sinner because of your autism?

There is plenty of scriptural basis to say that homosexuality is a sin. Just because YOU choose to ignore, rationalize, or reject it doesn't mean it's not there.

[semlogo]

There is plenty of scriptural basis to say that homosexuality is a sin. Just because YOU choose to ignore, rationalize, or reject it doesn't mean it's not there.

Really? Where is it?

[WalkerW]

For those interested, the following are from the Witherspoon Institute's journal Public Discourse:

Francis J. Beckwith (of The New Mormon Challenge fame!), "Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage."

Patrick Lee, Robert P. George, Gerard V. Bradley, "Marriage and Procreation: The Intrinsic Connection."

Christopher Wolfe, "What Marriage Has Become."

Sherif Gergis, Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson, "Does Marriage, or Anything, Have Essential Properties?"

And on a completely non-related topic, Abdullah Saeed, "The Quranic Case Against Killing Apostates."

Whether you agree or not, I find that members of the Witherspoon Institute provide coherent, concise arguments for their positions.

It is at the very least better than some of the posts in this thread.

Beckwith's is especially enlightening regarding the whole interracial marriage argument.

[LeSellers]

Really? Where is [the "plenty of scriptural basis to say that homosexuality is a sin"]?

I have seen (as I am sure you have) the passages used to make this charge. I have seen homosexual defenders and apologists dismiss them saying that, for instance, Lev 20:13 says, not that homosexuality is a sin, but that bi-sexuality is the sin. Here's the passage

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

They focus on the phrase "as he lieth with a woman" and claim that a homosexual doesn't lie with a man as he lies with a woman, since he doesn't "lie with a woman".

However, the original language doesn't give you that out. It says, according to Young,

And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them.

Notice that it is not "he" who "lieth with a woman", it is "one", i.e., "the typical man", so, by this scripture, homosexuality is a capital crime under the Law of Moses.

I have also seen those who claim that the Law of Moses does not apply to modern Christians, that it is improper to use that passage to condemn homosexuality. But we find Paul, in Romans, says essentially the same thing.

21 Because that, when [Jews and "Greeks", i.e., Gentiles,] knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Paul's emphatic: "men with men working that which is unseemly" is vile affection, against nature, and, as you notice, he lists homosex along with a host of other evils: murder, fornication, pride, hating of God, covenant breaker, merciless, and having pleasure in doing that which makes them "worthy of death".

The twist I have seen on this passage is that Paul doesn't actually say "homosex is evil". Soit! But there is no other reasonable explanation for the phrase "men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly". (Lesbianism, too, is evil, as we saw in verse 26: "their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature".)

There are other scriptures, too, but doubtless they who twist scripture to meet their own ends have addressed all of these, too.

Lehi