(It has been proven, if you asked yourselves really so, that homosexuals DON'T BORN homosexuals, they MAKE THEMSLVES so.
In fact, when your parents divorce as you being a child the possibility of being gay is tripled)
That's very interesting, considering it's difficult to tell how many people are actually gay, considering there's still a lot of shame attached to it. There's a lot of gay folks in the closet. So how can you say this is accurate?
Correlation does not equal causation, either. But if I were to venture a guess, a child who does not have overbearing religious parents might be more comfortable coming out of the closet. So not being gay, but not having to hide being gay, might be what skews your data, if you even have any data.
Homosexual relations are not natural.
It occurs in nature, among a wide variety of species. And more to the point, the desire occurs naturally in humans, and no one is forcing them to act on their natural desires, therefore, homosexual "relations" are in fact natural.
Facts. These are useful things to have on your side when posting.
Firstly, the human body is not created to serve to such purposes. (yes, I refer for example to a$$ penetration)
Oral sex is much the same way, and straight couples do that.
What is your point? Because there is absolutely no moral high ground from the argument you're making, and no logical difference between them.
Secondly, a very interesting way to prove that something is natural is to see the opinion of an innocent child. Little children disgust themselves when they see an homosexual pair kissing each other
Yes, being immature is quite natural for a child. Growing up to be so hateful, however, usually requires a lot of coaching on the part of parents and the religiously perverted.
Thirdly, homosexual marriages last by average 18 months
Assuming this is true, which is a hard assumption to make from your sources-
In a society which doesn't usually allow them to get married? Wow. So, it's sort of like, when we allow folks to have something they've never had before, they might rush into it without thinking, like those straight couples who go to Vegas?
How many straight marriages end in divorce? How quickly do they happen?
The statistic (if it exists) still has no bearing on whether it's fair to the individual or in a society's best interest to ban gay marriage. It's patently unfair to the individual, and the state has no interest in banning gay marriage if they're going to allow civil unions, and you'd have to be a complete basketcase to want to prevent gay couples from having any legal rights to one another whatsoever.
Let's take sex out of the equation altogether. If me and my best friend are roomates, and I have no family or children, and I consider him to be the only family I have, how would it be in the states' interest to keep my best friend out of my will, or prevent him from seeing me in the hospital? There is no such interest. It treads on my own freedoms and choices and gives the state nothing in return.
As such, the state has no interest in banning civil unions. Marriage is in the same family of legal construct, they're the same thing except it makes it explicit that the couple is a spousal couple, not just a familiar one.
Let's toss out random statistics and see what sticks = is not an argument.
Suppose suicide rates are higher for gay people. Last I checked, they are. But you know what? Suicide rates for abused spouses and abused children and bullied students are higher as well.
When you treat people like total dog [bleep] then they will be more depressed. It's not being gay that causes people pain, it's people like you who go out of their way to make them feel like there's something wrong with them, to deny them rights, to argue that they're disgusting, and do whatever is necessary to pretend they don't exist.
You know that the only other thing you could do to them is to be physically violent toward them? And you'd be in good company. From authoritarian fascists to backwards religious theocracies, gay people have been tormented by all manner of groups, put to death en masse, and treated like plague rats.
Do you think they might have some problems adjusting to society even when we start to welcome them as equals? It's only lifelong and generational and historical torment they've been through.
Do you factor that into your statistics, or do you just assume that because gay marriage being legal doesn't mean the marriages last longer than straight marriages means it can never be that way?
What if the demographics reverse? What would that mean, to you?
What if in a decade or so, gay marriages were proving to be more stable than heterosexual ones which are still declining?
If your argument is based in statistics, then you'd have to argue that gay marriage is the more stable, healthy partnership. That's the danger of your argument. You want to cite statistics to make your case, but if those numbers change, then you'd be unwilling to change with it. What does that mean? It means you'll cite whatever agrees with you, regardless of whether it is logical or not, true or not, and you'll ignore whatever does not agree with you.
It means your position is not a scientific one; it's a prejudice which will remain regardless of the actual data. You will cite not much in the way of data, claim it's authoritative science, and say that's the reason why you're correct. But that's not why you believe the way you do. It's not a scientific or logical stance you take, it's a stance you take and then you look for reasons to support it.
Whatever supports it: the Bible (which is ripe with hypocrisy and contradiction, and a manifesto of
beliefs, not facts) or certain studies (often conducted by biased, politically or religiously motivated groups, some of which have been famously overturned or proven to be
fraudulent).
Fourthly, the average of couples of an homosexual by year is 30
See above with the problems of statistics.
Fifthly, the homosexuals are the social collective who spend more money on psychologists by person
So are abused children, spouses, or other groups that have been mistreated. Blaming the victim for being a victim?
A computer is a natural thing.
This. Apples grow on trees, and you can surf the web on an Apple computer.
You are in no way an example of why I needed to begin this thread to show that the anti-gay lobby has no understanding of the definition of "natural". Thank you for being the needed counter-example, instead of another in a long line of definition-confused individuals.
