Homosexuality: A Survey

[PhoenixTears]

Hey Phoenix

But Homosexual lifestyles have been proven to be unhealthy. But okay, assuming homosexual lifestyles weren't health, and going along the reasoning of "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone". Then what about polygamy? It doesn't hurt anyone. It's the person's choice to have more than one wife. But of course, the idea is frowned upon in both of our cultures.

I honestly think, as long as all involved people are fine with it, that polygamy should be accepted as well. As long as nobody is hurting anyone else. And, of course, as long as they're paying taxes and such.

Here are a few sources supporting my stance that homosexual lifestyles are unhealthy.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modu ... vmNutTrq5I
http://www.china.org.cn/english/health/232116.htm
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/ ... -marriage/

Since I actually bothered to attempt to read those articles (I didn't quote make it through any of them), I can say that they're pretty much just complete nonsense. The first article staunchly defends against male couples but says very little about female couples. And at one point, even goes as far as this:

Today reports that, as of January 2004, only 936 homosexual or lesbian couples (for a total of 1,872 individuals) have entered into civil unions. This indicates that only about 21 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont has entered into civil unions. Put another way, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions.

By contrast, in Vermont, heterosexual married couples outnumber cohabiting couples by a margin of 7 to 1, indicating a much higher level of desire on the part of heterosexual couples to legalize their relationships.

You can't just make generalizations like that. Who says that that supposed 79% of homosexuals couples in Vermont have even found someone they'd like to enter into a civil union with? And what is the percentage of unmarried (or those without civil unions) straight couples to compare that with? The second paragraph only mentions straight couples instead of straight people as a whole, whereas the first paragraph is discussing homosexuals as a whole. It's basically an apples and oranges comparison. And the entire article is written that way.

The second article started with this:

Hollywood and the media relentlessly propagate the image of the fit, healthy, and well-adjusted homosexual. The reality is at polar opposites to this caricature: homosexual and lesbian relationships are typically characterized by instability, promiscuity, and unhealthy and risky sex practices, factors that greatly increase the incidence of serious and incurable sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including hepatitis, HPV, syphilis, gonorrhea, and AIDS.

And I gave up on it right away because that's just nonsense.

The third article was just more of the "Homosexuals caused the spread of AIDS" argument, so I skimmed it.

The fourth article mentions that homosexual couple can "anticipate many divorces" or something to that effect. The fact is, a relationship wherein the couple is married is pretty much guaranteed to last longer whether both participants are happy or not, simply because divorce is a complicated process and it takes a lot of time and effort - sometimes effort that the same couple doesn't even want to put into their relationship, much less into ending it. The same can probably be said for homosexual couples - if they were to marry, the same relationship would last longer than it would unmarried (provided it does end at all; I'm not including the relationships where the couple actually stays together and are happy together here), simply because of the process involved.

An interesting link for you to read: AIDS: A Doctor's Note on the Man-Made Theory

Tho you still avoid the studies :x

Honestly, it was a waste of time reading through them, so I don't blame him for avoiding them.

And as I told you on IRC, I will lump you together with other religious conservatives if you use the same stupid, baseless arguments to deny someone basic rights that they do without backing them up. To me, anyone that does that is the same as the next person who does so. If that offends you, then so be it. I honestly don't care. Denying someone basic rights based on something as silly as the gender of their partner is unfair and bigoted, and I don't feel like I should waste my time trying to defend my views to those people, since they won't bother to listen to reason anyway.

[ProfParanoia]

Maybe "off-topic" was the wrong word. Maybe "exaggerating the argument" would be a bit better?
But maybe Jd- wall-of-post are just scary XD

Tho you still avoid the studies :x

But I also disagree there, since not only does it show that not all rules are eternal and that words are often twisted to defend the barring of human rights, they also go to point out the real nature of the people who front the religious argument as not being on the level, since they openly pick and chose the priority of laws given under "what we want to be considered is". Iirc, Jesus stated that a rich man has little chance of getting into heaven, yet the people who lead the political charge are at the source of profit environment and deny that those words are to be taken seriously while a line from Romans is despite that historically it has nothing to do with homosexuality. And since the religious argument is really the only driving point against homosexuality, then it's really the only medium of discussion.

Also, any studies that trot the phrase "fiscal science" are trotting the slogan "we paid for this outcome". Since "Fiscal" means finical matters and yet I read it as being used several times for family social matters. It's also very reminiscent of anti-game/comic book articles, the so called studies about development can go either way and are really not something that can be readily proven. Also, the AIDS stuff is flimsy because it's more or less that AIDS is easier to transmit through anal sex (iirc) and not a legitimate link to homosexuality, it's just homosexual communities is where people from the 70's assumed it started. AIDS is prevented and gained the same way anything else is.

Also, since I'm here, I'll kick it too my homie Gene Robinson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4iYu2Nyh8U

[Jd-]

Maybe "off-topic" was the wrong word. Maybe "exaggerating the argument" would be a bit better?
But maybe Jd- wall-of-post are just scary XD

Tho you still avoid the studies :x

The argument is not exaggerated. It's valid, for the reasons that Prof just stated.

Also: Those studies were not directed at me and as a result I am not avoiding them. I did read the link he suggested to me, though, and it was, to be put as kindly as possible, trite. If the "studies" he mentioned are similar to that, I can't say I feel bad for not interjecting myself into a discussion he was having with someone else and wasting time reading them. If they are anything like his last example, I am going to assume they are full of double-talk, circular reasoning, begging the question, and assumptions that require a pre-conceived belief to even begin to "gain" anything from them.

Just remember when telling us to give equal consideration to absolutely everything on the internet: Someone writing something does not make it true. There are articles claiming the moon landing was faked. There are documentaries about it. There are countless books about it. Their very existence does not in any way validate their premise. That's something that fanatics have to understand: Just because someone said it doesn't mean it's true, no matter how eloquently it may be stated (not that the earlier "article" was eloquent in the least--I can only hope no money was paid for that to be penned, or else a fraud report should be filed with the local police immediately).

RM'd: It looks like Tears just dissected those studies, and I have even less occasion to read them now after hearing her thoughts on them. However, you did say:

And, like said before, if you accept those studies or not, is ironically, a matter of believing them or not :x lol

That alone is reason for no one to ever even consider reading them. If they, too, require belief, they're not worth anyone's time. However, if you really want me to read those studies, I'll read every word of every one and, if appropriate, set all of them alight with the sort of venom that will cause the authors to consider a change of profession.

Say the word.

[mangaluva]

I would love to see that, Jd-. I read those studies. They are ridiculous fact-twisters. There is literally no reason I can think of for a homosexual couple to be treated any different from a heterosexual couple, aside from the drastically reduced chances of surprise pregnancy :p

[PhoenixTears]

surprise pregnancy :p

I think a surprise pregnancy would be more of a surprise to homosexuals couples than heterosexual couples, in fact!

[Kleene Onigiri]

@PT:
In one sentence you say that "You can't just make generalizations like that" and in the next sentence you say you would generalize people just like that... Don't you think that's contradicting?
Tho, the way you described it, you wouldn't generalize me. Because you would say that because of this and that I would be like the next person that also does this and that. That's not generalization.
Generalization is when you take a person, let's say a girl that loves the color pink, and think and say that every girl loves the color pink.
Just the way you said things in the other post made it look like you generalize people

@"off-topic":
I don't remember why I said that anymore actually O_o" I think it was 10000 post before, where it was still about the survey and all that religion stuff started, which then the topic started to be about religion and marriage too. Tho the original topic was about the survey D: Which then all that religion and marriage talk got away from the survey explicit and expanded the topic. I think O.o"


@studies:
Well.... you guys wanted "proof". Now there are those studies, and you deny it with the reason: "I don't think that's true"... that's as strong a reason as saying "The bible says so".
Saying that lesbians aren't homosexuals is just a formality and doesn't automatically make everything said untrue, as well as it doesn't make everything else in the study true either.

Quoting Jd-:

Someone writing something does not make it true.

When is a study true then? When you do the study yourself? That's hard to accomplish.

And, like said before, if you accept those studies or not, is ironically, a matter of believing them or not :x lol

That alone is reason for no one to ever even consider reading them. If they, too, require belief, they're not worth anyone's time. However, if you really want me to read those studies, I'll read every word of every one and, if appropriate, set all of them alight with the sort of venom that will cause the authors to consider a change of profession.

Say the word.

You got my point wrong here. For me, ALL studies, whatever the topic, can be manipulated and deformed etc. So, for all studies, you need some kind of trust into the one who made it, and if you don't know the person, it'll turn in either believing it or not believing it.

It highly depends on the person and organization that creates a study. If they wanna prove that homosexuality is dangerous, they will automatically aim for that goal and the study is influenced through that.
If they want to prove it's not dangerous, then it'll be like that too.

Also, if people would be reasonable and reliable, we wouldn't need to ban anything at all, because there wouldn't be any danger at all.
So the "dangerous" part about homosexuality is (for me), that they don't need condoms to prevent  pregnancy. But reliable and reasonable people would still protect themselves because of diseases. But because there are some unreliable homosexual people doesn't mean that all of them need to be punished imo.
If heterosexual people wouldn't get pregnant, they would be as "dangerous" as homosexual people in that regard, because they wouldn't use protection as much either then XD because people simply aren't always reliable D:
But same goes for teenagers, they aren't always reliable either. And then there are some cases where young teenagers get pregnant But that doesn't mean that you should punish every teenager for that and forbid them to fall in love >:V But, strangely, there are people that think like that O_o"

Reminds me of the gun discussion. If people have rights to love then they should also have rights to have guns or drugs XD
If all people were reliable, there wouldn't be a problem for people owning guns or drugs D:

Hmm... if it didn't come across, I'm for state marriage :V

surprise pregnancy :p

I think a surprise pregnancy would be more of a surprise to homosexuals couples than heterosexual couples, in fact!

They already try to create a child with just females afaik? :V XD
Or making a man pregnant D:

[PhoenixTears]

@PT:
In one sentence you say that "You can't just make generalizations like that" and in the next sentence you say you would generalize people just like that... Don't you think that's contradicting?
Tho, the way you described it, you wouldn't generalize me. Because you would say that because of this and that I would be like the next person that also does this and that. That's not generalization.
Generalization is when you take a person, let's say a girl that loves the color pink, and think and say that every girl loves the color pink.
Just the way you said things in the other post made it look like you generalize people

Since you're getting into technicalities here, I might as well too: I never said here that I would generalize you. You twisted my words to fit that, though, just so you could argue it. In fact, I never used the word generalize on IRC either:

[09:17:37] don't lump me together again, PT *_*
[09:17:54] If you use stupid arguments without backing them up, then I will

and: "And as I told you on IRC, I will lump you together with other religious conservatives if you use the same stupid, baseless arguments to deny someone basic rights that they do without backing them up."

The word "generalize" doesn't appear in either of those statements.



And thank you for educating me on the definition of "generalize," but it wasn't actually necessary. I do know what I'm talking about.

@studies:
Well.... you guys wanted "proof". Now there are those studies, and you deny it with the reason: "I don't think that's true"... that's as strong a reason as saying "The bible says so".
Saying that lesbians aren't homosexuals is just a formality and doesn't automatically make everything said untrue, as well as it doesn't make everything else in the study true either.

You realize I was joking around when I brought that up, right? It was just something silly that I noticed. I don't need to cite that as a reason to tear the article apart - the article itself is basis enough for that.

[Stopwatch]

Guns and drugs are a lot more harmful than relationships, though relationships plus guns don't always end well

[Vylash]

Guns and drugs are a lot more harmful than relationships, though relationships plus guns don't always end well

[red.orchid]

Saying or trying to prove that homosexual relationships spread AIDS just makes me think of it as an excuse against innocent people who were born not similar to those in majority. That's all.

[Kleene Onigiri]

Guns and drugs are a lot more harmful than relationships, though relationships plus guns don't always end well

Then again there are also studies on drugs, whether they are dangerous or not. Some say they are, some say they aren't as dangerous as people think.
The Netherlands have them legalized, and it's not like the Netherlands turned out to be hell XD
Still they are forbidden in other countries.

Same for homosexuality, as long as people think it could turn out dangerous, they won't want it legalized.
And the people that think it's not dangerous, will want it to be legalized.
Both have their reasons, whether they are right or wrong.
I can at least understand that people could fear it and thus not wanting it.

[Jd-]

When is a study true then? When you do the study yourself? That's hard to accomplish.

You got my point wrong here. For me, ALL studies, whatever the topic, can be manipulated and deformed etc. So, for all studies, you need some kind of trust into the one who made it, and if you don't know the person, it'll turn in either believing it or not believing it.

It highly depends on the person and organization that creates a study. If they wanna prove that homosexuality is dangerous, they will automatically aim for that goal and the study is influenced through that.
If they want to prove it's not dangerous, then it'll be like that too.

Hmm... if it didn't come across, I'm for state marriage :V

Foremost, a study is "true" when it thoroughly demonstrates its results but does not rely on preconceived notions to be effective or valid. The problem is that these people are operating with an agenda, which is one thing you are right about though you did not use those terms. However, also note that someone operating with an agenda will skew the results to reflect that agenda at any cost. They are NOT impartial observers looking into whether something is true or not--that is something you absolutely must come to terms with when determining what information to take seriously. These people have an agenda and they are working toward it, not conducting a study for the sake of science. They're doing it for political reasons and nothing more.

You don't actually need "trust" in the people conducting the "studies" (though I feel using that word is an insult to actual science in this discussion), because if their results are in any way meaningful, the results will be replicable and speak for themselves. There are studies that demonstrate likely probabilities and then there are those that are questionable in nature. Again: Just because someone says something doesn't make it true. You should be skeptical of everything you read and hear until you have individually confirmed its validity through due process of thought. If you want to avoid being taken in by nonsense, it's important to be a skeptic: question and query everything before you place any faith in it.

What is it that constitutes a "state marriage"? Is it 100% equal to the marriage of a heterosexual couple in every single possible way? If so, why are we having this discussion and why are you defending bigots that are attempting to see that that equality is never reached?

Also, you realize that this quote...

But same goes for teenagers, they aren't always reliable either. And then there are some cases where young teenagers get pregnant But that doesn't mean that you should punish every teenager for that and forbid them to fall in love >:V But, strangely, there are people that think like that O_o"

Completely invalidates those studies and supports everything we've been saying, right? Just making sure that's what you meant.

---

I'll just say one more time in case it's necessary:

IF YOU BELIEVE THE BIBLE OR ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE RIGHTFULLY OUTLAWS HOMOSEXUALITY OR GAY MARRIAGE, YOU ARE DESPERATELY AND UTTERLY WRONG.

[ProfParanoia]

@studies:
Well.... you guys wanted "proof". Now there are those studies, and you deny it with the reason: "I don't think that's true"... that's as strong a reason as saying "The bible says so".
Saying that lesbians aren't homosexuals is just a formality and doesn't automatically make everything said untrue, as well as it doesn't make everything else in the study true either.

But the fact their statements are largely untrue is showing that it's not "proof". And saying "this is false" is actually a stronger statement then saying "the literal reading of a book that's been translated through several languages and was written so many centuries ago that it was way before homosexuality was even really a concept is enough reason to restrict people's rights".

Pointing that out is just to give the most obvious example of their twisting and lying of so called "facts".

[Jd-]

I'm going to rewind this conversation some, in this new post, to bring everyone up to speed.

WHAT POSSIBLE REASON IS THERE TO LEGALLY PREVENT GAY PEOPLE FROM BEING MARRIED THAT IS NOT ROOTED IN RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR PROMOTING YOUR OWN SELF PREFERENCE?

It can't be as a result of religious belief. There is no just cause for pushing your own religion's beliefs on an entire society by outlawing something like gay marriage. Not everyone believes in your religion, ergo it is not fair of you to push your religion's agenda on them by legislating against them in its name--especially in the United States of America where we have both freedom of religion and, by association, freedom from religion. By disallowing other human beings with all the same natural born rights as you in every other regard, you are proclaiming that they are not worthy of being equal to you, and that is wrong.

It can't be as a result of your personal preference that they cannot wed because your personal preference means nothing.

So, if it isn't one of those two reasons... What is it? What is the reason that gay people can't be married? I want a reason that makes it OK to BAN gay marriage, but not on the grounds of religious belief or personal preference.

[PhoenixTears]

I don't think you'll get a real answer to that question, Jd-, because there isn't one.

This is an invitation for anyone to prove me wrong. Please attempt it.