Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by JollyRoger, Feb 13, 2008.
Has that happened in those non-******** countries that have allowed equality for gays like marriage?
Actually, wait.. I see something on the horizon..
OMG it's a huge homosexual army. They are here to spread AIDS and send us all to hell.
Pink camo will be easy to spot. They don't have a chance as they saunter limp wristed into the woods.
I love hearing how gays will destroy the world if allowed to be equal but then when it happens not a single one of those unfunded fears comes to fruition.
We've had gay almost-but-not-quite marriage ("registered partnership") for, oh, fifteen years now. One should think this is enough time for some medium- to long-term effects to show up. It's had basically zero effect on our health care system as far as I can tell (the main problems there remain administrative inefficiencies, and a relative paucity of qualified personnel who want to live and work out in the sticks -- neither of which has much to do with anyone's sexual orientation).
The biggest additional expense, such as it is, has been all that paperwork which had to be redone, all those forms redesigned, to replace "married" with "married or in a registered partnership" and "spouse" with "spouse or registered partner" and so on (and inserting an extra box in those cases where the difference actually matters). This expense could have been avoided if we'd gone straight to a fully gender-neutral marriage law (which is probably coming this year).
Fifteen years, and not a single rain of sulfur from the skies, nor are there any more piles of skulls on the streetcorners than there used to be.
You once again somewhat mangle my words Warpus. What I said was that wider social acceptance of homosexual behavior (by such things as legalization of gay marriage) would lead to more people choosing that lifestyle and that could lead to an increased burden upon our healthcare system due to that people in that lifestyle having much higher rates of sexually transmitted disease due to their risky sexual behavior.
And in fact, I do seem to recently reading where such diseases are indeed on the rise again in the gay community...not decreasing. /shrug.
I would appreciate it if you cant represent my positions correctly to please pm me for clarification prior to such public mangling. Thanks.
Isn't their sexual behavior more risky because its not widely accepted? You may not know this but straight people have anal sex too. So its not the type of sex. And when you say gay are you talking about just gay men? A smaller group who would focus a problem within it.
But maybe if gays weren't treated like crap they would feel better about them selves and lash out emotion stress with sexual actions. Just like how emotionally ruined girls become tramps.
Slightly off topic, but that's a dangerous statistic. One might argue that responsible people have less chance to marry the wrong partner and diforce AND that responsible people's kids do better. This way this link between having one parent and doing poor, is broken.
The working of statistics can easily be explained by this politically neutral issue:
Tall people die earlier, by statistic fact. Does that make the chance of dying younger bigger, when one is taller? Not at all. How's that possible:
-Men die earlier than women.
-Men are taller than women.
In statistics is quite common to draw the false conclusion that a is linked to b; b is linked to c, thus a is linked to c....
It's true. When they allowed Gay marriage in the Netherlands, I seriously contemplated running with the new fad. The thing is I'm a terrible dresser so I failed my exams horribly. Many of my friends, who dress more sharply than me, left their girlfriends for a piece of manly ass.
I dress sharp have keen eye for interior decorating and can cook....... if I move to your nation I may just not be able to help my self and catch teh ghay.
Stapel, and others:
I am of the belief that government shouldn't intervene in personal matters, they shouldn't even intervene beyond protecting their citizens. That being said, I was arguing my personal opinion on the matter of gay marriage and adoption, not saying it should be made law, but that I personally think it is immoral and destructive for the happiness of those involved.
Also, in response to Skad's comment about homosexual promiscuous behavior. It is a fact that homosexuals change sexual partners way more frequently than heterosexuals, and that is why deceases spread among them in a greater ratio. You might not be willing to accept it, but their lifestyle is generally less monogamous and more prone to casual sex.
As for many things that deal with society, such as sociology and economics, it is virtually impossible to prove anything at all, because there are so many factors present. In economics we always say "ceteris paribus" (all other things equal) before we present an argument, but we know very well that "all other things equal" is never the case, but we have to assume it in order to theorize about models and such. In like manner I am sure I could never "prove" to you that homosexual adoption is not the optimal upbringing, because there are too many factors present, there is no real world case when "all other things are equal". Some of you throw around statistics, I never do because I know you can always find statistics to support your argument. Statistics is BS. All I can do, like we do in econ, is to use reason to try to find the most likely answer. I think it is reasonable that what is unnatural is not beneficial, homosexual marriage and adoption is unnatural.
Gov. Romney should have mentioned that when showing off his strong economic credentials (and apparently abysmal job creation record)...
Yes I know that they are. I even gave reasons why. So I think I accept it. And it is a fact that some gays have more partners.
And you have every right to express your opinion.
Would there be a possibility that their general lifestyle maybe become a little more settled when they were allowed to marry, raise kids and such? When people openly can declare their love to each other, be it in marriage or simply a relationship which is accepted by society, would that not be beneficial to that relationship?
Or does being gay in itself carry with it the characteristic of being more prone to casual sex? And could you explain what part of homosexuality makes them more prone to it?
I'm right with you on this one.
Ah, but now you assume it is not natural. Explain why you think it's not.
Marriage itself is not natural.
Acceptance has nothing to do with it. Its the act, not the stigma associated with it that is high risk. Point being, the sexual behavior is widely accepted amongst gays and they are precisely the demograph with the higest risk.
ROFL. I cant really believe you actually tried to make this a point. Gays are more accepted in our society now than EVER before...those rates should be going DOWN not UP if your premise to be believed. And yet that is simply not the case.
Correct. But not at the rate or risk of the gay community. One can also make the arguement that heterosexual couples that practice this tend to be more monogamous than gays that practice it. Bottom line (no pun intended) while some of the individual acts may be practiced among all demographs, homosexual men still display a much higher rate of these diseases.
Actually, it is the type of sex IN ADDITION to other behaviors.
Again, disease transmission doesnt really have anything to do with your perception (right or wrong) of how they are treated.
That is true only if you believe that homosexuality is a choice.
Oh! I was avoiding that.
Here we go .... page 40 or bust!
I believe it is precisely a choice. There are people who experiment all the time with this at different periods of their life and they make a choice to engage in this or that where their sexuality is concerned. Its simply an easier choice for some than others. labeled Bi-sexuals seem to be able to make that choice at their whim.
Now that choice could be made eaiser or harder dependant upon a huge variety of factors including genetics/chemistry/behavior/surroundings etc. etc. But as humans we are precisely adaptable enough that we can pretty much program ourselves any which way we want. Thats my belief anyway.
No but their treatment ,and it is wrong, does have to do with their emotional well being. A bad emotional state from the wrong treatment will lead to acting out in self destructive behavior.
The only difference between what you just said and what I said above, is the 'influx of homosexual immigrants' part, which I clearly I remember you saying, way back.
Having said that, I only brought this up because it seems to be the only somewhat plausible argument which outlines how homosexual marriage can possibly harm heterosexuals.
Separate names with a comma.